Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Road Accidents

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the number of road accidents on motorways and trunk roads in Wales in each year since 1981; and what is his strategy for reducing their incidence.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): The available information relates solely to accidents that caused death and personal injury. The figures are as follows: 1981, 2,041; 1982, 1,998; and 1983, 1,972. The trunk road improvement programme is the chief means of reducing road accidents. In addition, we are encouraging better road safety education and training.

Mr. Hooson: It is good to know that the accident statistics have been decreasing each year. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong Welsh approval for the high priority that Ministers give to trunk road improvements, because they mean improved driving safety and contribute to a stronger Welsh economy?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend. Expenditure on new construction, improvement and maintenance of trunk roads and motorways in Wales is an important part of that strategy.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that police time is being used to the best effect in view of the findings of the Gifford report, which was published in Wales today, and the serious allegations made against the police? Will the hon. Gentleman press the Home Secretary for an official inquiry into these allegations?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I have taken careful note of the point. I have looked at the press reports and shall give further consideration to the matter.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend agree that road construction is not the only answer to the problem? Will he, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Transport, take account of the fact that all over the world lower speed limits than in Britain are implemented, leading to a marked decrease in serious accidents? I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that matter.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I shall certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend's point. In addition, we attach great importance to better road safety education and training. I shall look carefully at my hon. Friend's point about speed limits.

Mr. Wigley: On the matter of better education and training, is the Minister aware that there are misgivings in some parts of Wales because insufficient literature is available for schools, especially where the Welsh language is the normal vehicle of education? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the current provisions for this education by the Welsh Office? Should not the Welsh Office be giving a greater lead to the counties in this respect?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The Welsh Office provides considerable funds towards the cost of the road safety activities of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Wales. Those activities place a special emphasis on children's safety and make special provision for the disabled. We are contributing to the society's road safety exhibition at the Royal Welsh show. I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's point about Welsh language provision and will look carefully into that aspect.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Assuming the direct relationship between driver fatigue and motorway accidents, what are the Minister's plans to improve motorway service facilities within the 80-odd miles of the M4 west of the Severn bridge?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, through no one's fault, certain difficulties have arisen. We shall try to sort matters out as rapidly, as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been considerable improvements in facilities as, for example, at Pont Abraham in his constituency.

Mr. Roy Hughes: How can the Government be so complacent about the vital matter of road maintenance when there are such persistent complaints from individuals and motoring organisations? Is it not yet another example of the Government's penny wise, pound foolish strategy, which is impairing economic efficiency as well as endangering life?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Of course that does not relate directly to the question, which is about motorways and trunk roads. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to road maintenance generally. I assure him that there is no complacency about that matter.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of people were registered as unemployed in Wales under 25 years of age in April 1980 and April 1984, respectively.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for the number of people aged under 25 years in Wales who are out of work; and how this compares with the figures of 12 months earlier.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The latest information relates to April, when there were 67,085 unemployed claimants under 25 years of age in Wales, a percentage of 39·5. The figure for 1983 was 70,041. Comparable figures for April 1980 are not available.

Mr. Wardell: In April 1980, 17 per cent. of those 'who were unemployed under the age of 25 had been unemployed for more than one year. The equivalent figure in April 1984 was 31 per cent. Will the Secretary of State


therefore follow the example of his counterpart in the Scottish Office and introduce a youth enterprise fund, which he has set up at the cost of about £400,000 to encourage youngsters between the ages of 16 and 25 to set up in their own businesses?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least welcome the fact that recently there has been some reduction in this sector of unemployment. We have, as he is aware, a wide range of schemes to assist the development of new businesses and enterprise schemes generally. I do not believe that that age group is neglected in that respect. I shall certainly consider whether there is any lesson to be learnt from the Scottish experience that we could extend to Wales. We always seek to see whether we can learn from these experiments in different parts of the country.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State feel, in view of the tremendous emphasis placed 12 months ago on getting young people into the new scheme which the Manpower Services Commission was developing, that this comparison shows a bleak prospect, and that by September it is likely that a large number of young people under 25 will have come off MSC schemes with no jobs in prospect? Can he not announce a new initiative?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the youth training scheme is still new. If one considers some of the other schemes, one sees that about 50 per cent. of the entrants of the commmunity programme fall into that category. We have a wide range of schemes. It is striking, in all the factories that I have visited during the past three or four weeks, such as AB electronics, which is currently taking on more than 1,000 new people, and British Telecom, which is producing new products, how many young people are being taken on to work in the new technologies. That is much more important in the long run than any new schemes we can introduce, and it is the best prospect for the future.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the MSC survey of youth training scheme leavers published in April, showing over 40 per cent. of them in work, illustrates the success of the scheme and is a tremendous tribute to those running it? Does he agree also that it completely refutes the shameful and shoddy attack on the scheme by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who said that thousands of youngsters in Wales were being conned into fraudulent schemes for which no real jobs exist?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that anyone who has studied these schemes will realise their value. I should like to join in paying tribute to those from the trade unions, industry, local government and the voluntary sector who are making them such a success. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rogers: Before the Secretary of State gets carried away, with the help of his boys from behind, to the position where he says that there is probably no unemployment in Wales, will he say what practical steps he is taking about the continually rising unemployment figures?

Mr. Edwards: A range of measures are in operation, through the Welsh Development Agency, in conjunction with other Government organisations. I could spell out at great length, but you would bring me up short, Mr. Speaker, the record levels of new factory applications and

SFA applications, as well as many new projects and inward investment programmes. They will all provide jobs for the future.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister undertake to read a very sobering report from Clwyd's principal careers officer, who expressed his fears last week that as many as 1,250 youngsters will return to the dole queue after their youth training scheme courses? Does the Minister comprehend that, with 23,000 Clwyd citizens jobless, the long-term unemployment figures are higher than 40 per cent.? We are very grateful for the contribution of the youth training scheme, but parents in Clwyd very much wish their youngsters to have real jobs.

Mr. Edwards: Yes, I shall read the report. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are looking for real jobs. That is why I very much welcome the employment provided by a range of new companies, of which Sharp is probably the most spectacular in that part of Wales.

Secondary School Cost

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1979–80, at constant prices.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: At November 1982 prices the figures are £925 and £900 respectively.

Mr. Knox: Do not those figures show that there has been a satisfactory increase in the resources devoted to the education of each pupil in secondary schools in Wales since the Government took office? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that fact is sufficiently well publicised?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am certainly not satisfied that the figures are well enough publicised. They make nonsense of the alarmist claims of Opposition Members that we have made heavy cuts in expenditure on schools.

Mr. Ron Davies: Are not the figures that we have been given being used as a cosmetic to hide the reduction in expenditure on education in Wales? Does the Minister accept that the apparent improvement of which he has told us comes about only because of falling rolls, and that we have tremendous problems in our secondary schools in Wales, where teachers are preparing their young people for life after school? The Government are following an economic policy which makes such a task that much more difficult, and does the Minister accept that if teachers and education authorities, who are struggling with a very difficult task, are to be successful they need many more resources than they have at present?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. I accept none of his propositions. I am not saying that the position is not difficult, but with proper management of resources it will be possible to make adequate educational provision as well as to improve standards.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the effects in Wales of the miners' strike.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Powell: We well understand the reply that we get continually from the Secretary of State for Wales. Does he not share the Prime Minister's view, expressed at Porthcawl on Saturday, that for all our sakes the miners' strike should be over soon? What input is the right hon. Gentleman giving to get the two sides together? Does he not appreciate that the strike is affecting the economy of Wales and is a further threat to the Welsh steel industry? When the Prime Minister left that conference she had egg on her face, thrown not by miners but by farmers, the supporters of the Government. Why were the farmers' wives not arrested, as they would have been had they been miners?

Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to recognising that the strike is damaging jobs in the coal industry as well as threatening them in steel and on the railways. I hope that he will join in condemning those in his party, including his Deputy Leader, who are going out of their way to encourage this damaging strike.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the evident demonic determination of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers to destroy not only their industry but the steel industry and, come to that, the railway industry, as revealed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), does my right hon. Friend think that the mere passage of time will suffice to bring the leaders of the union to their senses?

Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to speculate, but it is clear that many in the coal industry and other industries recognise fully the damaging consequences of this political strike, and hope that it will end soon.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us in the Opposition understand that if the Government had done their job the strike need never have happened? Is he a member of the ministerial team that discusses the Government's attitude to the strike? At those meetings, has he discussed and supported the proposal made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Pendarth (Mr. Callaghan) for a mediator to be appointed to see whether the strike can be ended?

Mr. Edwards: What I do know is that the Labour Governments, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, closed far more pits in Britain, and in Wales, than this Government have ever closed. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not intend to disclose what goes on in the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As it now seems that Mr. Scargill is bent on destroying the steel as well as the coal industry, has my right hon. Friend seen the article in this morning's edition of the Western Mail, which states that Ravenscraig would be in the best position if a choice had to be made between Ravenscraig, Port Talbot and Llanwern?

Mr. Edwards: I believe that the steel workers of Llanwern and Port Talbot, by their actions, have made their plants very competitive and efficient, and deserve to succeed. It would be tragic if the actions of Mr. Scargill and his cohorts, encouraged by the Labour Benches, put those plants at risk.

Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that probably well over half the country places responsibility

for the coal miners' strike fairly and squarely on the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much extra the people of Wales have had to pay through their rates because of the police operations which have supposedly been necessary during the strike?

Mr. Edwards: I do not have the figures. However, I know that they are nothing like as much as the people of Wales have had to pay to keep uneconomic pits going, and which industry generally has had to pay. It makes sense for this country to produce coal and fuel economically so that we may be competitive and succeed in the world economy.

Mr. Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents worked in the Llanwern steel works before the 1980 steel strike, but that fewer of them now do so as a result of that strike? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that if the coal industry strike goes on, none will probably do so?

Mr. Edwards: Of course, strikes such as this always destroy jobs not only in the strikers' own industry but in the other related industries. That is the tragedy of this strike, which is why we must hope that those who are apparently determined to continue will have second thoughts.

Mr. Rogers: As the NUM seems to be the only body in Wales that is fighting for jobs, and as the Secretary of State obviously evaded the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), will he take this second opportunity and answer my right hon. Friend's question rather than duck it as he so obviously did?

Mr. Edwards: I have already answered the question by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to answer it a second time.

Mr. Terlezki: It is a tragedy that the Welsh economy—and, indeed, the British economy—is suffering so greatly because of the strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not for the rank and file politicians to settle the dispute but for those who work and are involved in the industry to do so?

Mr. Edwards: It would be sensible if people sat down and discussed the great future that is available to this industry, which has been backed by record investment by the Government. It is tragic that that investment is being wasted and that the future of the industry is being put at risk by those who are not seeking to save jobs but are destroying them.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that neither he nor the Prime Minister should wash their hands of the dispute, but should organise an urgent, decisive intervention? Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the third time of asking, answer the question? Is he a member of the ministerial Committee handling the dispute?

Mr. Edwards: The most decisive intervention is being provided by miners in the hon. Gentleman's area of Wales. I am glad that an increasing number of miners are at work at Point of Ayr. The way to settle the dispute is for the miners to go back to work.

Milk Quota Scheme

Mr Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make a detailed statement on the arrangements for dealing with special hardship cases in Wales resulting from the European Economic Community milk quota scheme.

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in completing arrangements for dealing with cases of hardship arising from the milk quota scheme of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Milk producers have now been informed of the categories of special cases that will be considered for award of additional quota. Further details in the form of regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible. We have also introduced an outgoers scheme to assist smaller producers. It is hoped to announce detailed arrangements for the scheme at the end of July.

Mr. Raffan: It is now almost three months since the milk quota scheme was announced, yet its details are dribbling out with agonising slowness for the farming community. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when the producer-retailers will receive a provisional quota? At present they are completely in the dark. When will the outgoers scheme begin? Will he assure us that if it does not release sufficient extra quota for the small 40-cow dairy farmer, it will be extended?

Mr. Edwards: On 20 June we wrote to producers giving guidance about the arrangements for direct sales. I hope that it will be possible to lay before the House the necessary order for the main quota scheme within the next week. I have already said that we hope to announce detailed arrangements for the outgoers scheme at the end of this month.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the worst difficulties have arisen not because of the change of policy but because of its suddeness? When he considers the matter, will he pay special attention to the difficulties of those who, encouraged by Ministers, expanded their business with bank overdrafts or other forms of credit and who are now in a tricky position?

Mr. Edwards: It is because the problems of expanders have been recognised that a main aim of the quota scheme is to help them. That category is covered. I hope that the leavers scheme that I announced will assist those in that position. We recognise the difficulties that many producers face in making this adjustment.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that Welsh dairy farmers will be adequately compensated for lost business caused by this Government's agricultural policy?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, the leavers scheme, which I have described, will be of particular value to Wales because of its emphasis on the small 40-cow unit. That will be of great benefit. The hon. Gentleman talked about the policy of "this Government", but I agree with the Farmers Weekly, which on 8 June pointed out that the other parties were the severest critics of EC overspending. It said that they would have attacked the absence of a dairy surplus control policy with the same gleeful venom that they

display against its implementation, and that they do not suggest an alternative lifeline to dairy farmers, but argue loudly and often incoherently that they seek to give the impression that they are.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a glaring inconsistency in the Government's handling of the dairy industry? During the past three or four years small dairy farmers have been encouraged to embark on the farm and horticultural development scheme, but under the the new proposals many of those farmers who have committed themselves to many thousands of pounds of capital investment face cuts of 9 per cent. Will the Secretary of State say specifically when those farmers will be told whether they are special cases, and if they are, by how much the quota will be extended? Will he assure us that if that information is not available by the end of the summer the Government will accept responsibility for paying the super levy, to allow an even period of transition for the farmers who are most directly affected?

Mr. Edwards: I have already said that we hope to lay the necessary parliamentary order within about a week, although it must then pass through the House. Therefore, it is unlikely that applications under the quota allocations scheme will be received before the middle of July. I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman that we should then deal with the applications as quickly as possible, and we are ready to set up the panel system as soon as possible. It is extremely important that people should have the fullest information before September, when the first tranche of levy becomes payable, although the payment is not due until about the middle of the following November.

Mr. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no further large cuts in quotas in subsequent years so that dairy farmers, having absorbed the present blow with great difficulty, can plan with confidence for the future?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend knows that another 1 per cent. cut is built into the present arrangements, which were phased over two years. I cannot go beyond the agreement that has been reached.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave uncertainty at present, with banks putting pressure on farmers who do not yet know their quotas? In those circumstances, will he now give an assurance that no farmer who, during the past couple of years, increased his milk output on the advice and with the agreement of Ministry officials will be allowed to go to the wall?

Mr. Edwards: The people whom the hon. Gentleman described are those from whom we shall expect applications under the quota scheme. Until we know the number of applications and the amounts involved we cannot say whether they will come within the 2·5 per cent. that has been set aside under the rules of the agreement reached in Brussels. I take the opportunity of saying publicly what I have said to many banks privately: as we shall be laying the orders soon and operating the scheme as quickly as possible, I hope that they will not press too precipitately those customers who are still not fully aware of their position.

Mr. John David Taylor: As it has been revealed that Southern Irish milk producers cannot produce enough milk


to take up the quota allocations for the Republic of Ireland, will it be in order for Welsh producers, as distinct from the Milk Marketing Board, to export milk to the Republic?

Mr. Edwards: I have no evidence that Europe will ever return to having no substantial surpluses, and we must consider this matter on a Europe-wide basis.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Government paid less attention to the better-off farmers, who have waxed fat for so long, and instead paid more attention to the less well-off farmers, so many of whom are in Wales and who are suffering badly as a result of the new quota system? Why is there no parity in this Common Market arrangement? Why should Eire have such a good deal? Is there not also a need for a bit of chwarae teg for Welsh farmers?

Mr. Edwards: It is precisely because I agree with the hon. Gentleman, at least on the fact that smaller farmers are especially important for Wales, that we have introduced a scheme that will be of special benefit to those with 40 cows or fewer. They should be the first priority in the reallocation of quota.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people under 18 years of age there were in Mid-Glamorgan and Wales, respectively, at the latest available date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The latest information available relates to April 1984, when in Mid-Glamorgan there were 1,711 unemployed claimants under 18 years of age and in Wales there were 8,096.

Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware of a reply that I received from the Home Secretary on 4 June about the increase in convictions of youngsters aged under 18 for drug-related offences? Is he aware that in Wales there has been a 100 per cent. increase in convictions of youngsters aged under 18 since 1979? Does he accept that there must be a direct correlation between the increase in unemployment and the increase in drug abuse? Does he recognise that during the past 12 months four youngsters have died tragically as a result of solvent abuse? Will he undertake to establish an independent inquiry to examine the correlation between unemployment and the lack of prospects for young people and the incidence of drug and solvent abuse? If and when that inquiry shows that correlation, will he agree to take the necessary economic and social measures to deal with the problem?

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept that there is a direct correlation, but, in so far as there is any relationship, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that over the past year unemployment among the under-18 age group in Wales has fallen by a third and that in Mid-Glamorgan unemployment among the under-18 age group has fallen by almost a half.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unfilled vacancies in Welsh jobcentres in March, the highest for any March since 1980, is yet another strong pointer to the economic recovery taking place? Does he also agree that in Clwyd, where the number of unfilled vacancies increased by nearly 50 per cent.——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about Mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Edwards: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the signs of the economic recovery. It is amply borne out by the CBI's monthly trend survey published only this morning.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people, unadjusted and inclusive of school leavers, are unemployed in Wales; and by what percentage unemployment has increased since May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 4 June.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the convenience of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman, courteously, give us the answer in detail, as he usually does? Is he not evading the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State does what he wishes in this matter.

Mr. Jones: Give us the figures.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ian Grist, No. 11.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not have a reply. I have no reason to think that the Secretary of State would give any other reply. I have called Mr. Grist.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a supplementary question which I had hoped to ask.

Mr. Speaker: The question was from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the figures which, traditionally in this honourable House, all Secretaries of State have been prepared to come before us to give. We have witnessed a form of parliamentary cowardice. The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give the shameful figures for which he knows he has responsibility. Will you, Mr. Speaker, give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give the figures?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see that the Secretary of State wishes to respond.

Mr. Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I assumed that the hon. Gentleman would remember the figures that I gave him only three weeks ago. If he has such an appallingly bad memory and pays so little attention, I shall give the figures willingly now, if that is in order. The figures for May 1979 and May 1984 are 77,177 and 168,799 respectively—an increase of 118·7 per cent. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a bad memory.

Mr. Speaker: I had called the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), but I now propose to call the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to ask a supplementary to his question No. 9.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to give those despairing, shameful and serious figures. Will he concede that he could give hope to the unemployed of Wales if he were to


announce the urgent building of a second crossing of the Severn, if he initiated a massive housing drive, if he enlarged the Welsh Development Agency's budget, and if new anthracite and coking coal mines were to be opened? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will concede, given the wretched and miserable figures which he wished to hide from the honourable House, that the people of Wales urgently need a change of policy.

Mr. Edwards: I find it absolutely amazing that the hon. Gentleman is so slow on his feet and that his memory is so bad that he gives such a disastrous performance from the Opposition Front Bench. What will provide jobs for the future are the large number of new companies that are setting up in Wales, many in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Overseas Firms (Inquiries)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries from overseas firms have been received in the current calendar year by his Department and the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: During the first five months of 1984, WINvest—the organisation responsible for coordinating inward investment—received 123 inquiries from overseas companies.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our membership of the EEC is a vital factor in attracting these overseas firms which give so much employment in Wales, but that class-based and futile strikes are amazingly damaging?

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree, and, of course, the figures that I have given are, at least in large part, an answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Since WlNvest was established in April 1983, it has helped to secure 23 new projects by overseas companies, which promise up to 3,500 new jobs, and capital expenditure of £82 million, almost all of this because we are members of the European Community.

Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the overseas company Sharp. Does he agree that it would need 200 companies like Sharp setting up in Wales to get the unemployment figures down to what they were in 1979 when the Tory Government took office?

Mr. Edwards: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, who represents Wrexham, is not seeking to run down a project from a major international company which will initially employ about 250 people and expects to employ about 650 people in the next few years.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Would a point of order relating to Welsh questions that have been asked be better left till 3.30 pm?

Mr. Speaker: Most definitely. We may even go back to Welsh questions.

Later——

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect, in connection with question No. 9, that the Secretary of State answered by a not unprecedented form of words, referring back. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) objected to that answer, seeing it, quite rightly, as an evasion by the Secretary of State, who was trying to avoid spelling out to the people

of Wales that there had been a 118 per cent. increase in unemployment since this Government came into office. You then ruled, Sir, that supplementary questions should not be allowed from my hon. Friends, on the ground that the Secretary of State had not given an answer.
Subsequently, after you called the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), the Secretary of State intervened and asked whether he could give a fuller answer to question No. 9. He gave that fuller answer, eventually spelling out the figures that he had sought to conceal, but when he had done so, although my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside was allowed to ask his supplementary question, all other supplementary questions on an issue that is of fundamental importance in Wales were precluded. May I ask you to consider, Sir, whether the Secretary of State could, after the private notice question, return to this matter, and face normal questioning from Opposition Members?

Mr. Speaker: That would not be possible. All questions are of fundamental importance to the Member concerned and, in this instance, of fundamental importance to Wales. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did not rise to ask a supplementary question, it was not unreasonable to move on to the next question, which is exactly what I did. I am anxious, especially during Welsh Question Time, to call as many hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies as possible.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to prolong the point of order, but it is of importance. Some of my hon. Friends and I were hoping to catch your eye to ask supplementary questions. We know that you have used your discretion to allow Back Benchers to ask supplementary questions, especially on unemployment and its effect on their constituncies. In my constituency unemployment has escalated from 3·7 to 19·7 per cent. since the Government took office. That is why I wanted to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would not be alone in wishing to ask a supplementary question. I try to get through a good range of Welsh questions and I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to do so. He was called during Welsh Question Time and I do not think that he has any complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Women (Ordination)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have made any assessment of the potential financial and other consequences within their responsibilities of the ordination of women.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner. Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): No, Sir.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. and episcopal Friend ask the Church Commissioners to make some plans about this? Is he aware that, in the opinion of many of us, the case for the ordination of women is strong, and we feel that they will be, and should be, ordained before long?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I give all due note to my hon. Friend's opinions, but the matter will not be decided by the Church Commissioners. As and when it is decided, if it is decided, by the appropriate authority, the commissioners will have to give serious thought to what their responsibilities may be.

Mr. Frank Field: As Synod has ruled that there is no theological objection to the ordination of women, and as the Synod is our Parliament, do not the commissioners believe that the calculations asked for in the question should be undertaken?

Sir William van Straubenzee: With respect, no. I think that that would be to pre-empt any decision that the Synod may or may not make.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend assure us that, if the unfortunate day comes when women are ordained, they will at least be ordained by Bishops who believe in God?

Sir William van Straubenzee: If this comes about, they will presumably be ordained by bishops of the Church of England. who, I understand on good authority, believe in God.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from the opinions of the bishop-elect of Durham, will due regard be had in this matter to the effect on relations between the Church of England and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communions, which it always says it wants to improve?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners, for whom I answer, are not responsible for this decision. I must make that quite clear, without discourtesy to any hon. Member. I have been present at many such discussions, and that is certainly one of the considerations that I have often heard them put forward forcefully.

Mr. Ryman: Would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to consider this further? With regard to the proposed consecration of the new bishop of Durham on 6 July, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern in the north-east——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to the ordination of women.

Mr. Ryman: Have the Church Commissioners ascertained the views of the bishop-elect of Durham, whose proposed consecration on 6 July is giving widespread concern to many clergy in the north-east?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners of course have responsibilities to the Bishop of Durham for the time being, as for other diocesan bishops, but I think that they would not usually concern themselves to make inquiries of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Stokes: Do not these exchanges show that my hon. Friend would be well advised to keep out of this most serious controversy, as such a revolutionary step as the ordination of women is far more serious than any mere financial consideration?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I have generally worked through a reasonably lengthy life by handling women extremely carefully.

Deceased Clergymen (Orphans)

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what financial and educational arrangements are made for the orphans of deceased clergymen; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: While I am sympathetic to the needs of orphans of deceased clergymen, I must point out that the commissioners have no statutory authority to make direct financial provision for them. I am, however, sending my hon. Friend details of the pensions scheme administered by the Church of England Pensions Board and of the assistance which may be available from charitable sources.

Mr. Greenway: I assume that it would be out of order to ask whether my hon. Friend agrees with the artist who considered that Jesus was a woman, but does he agree that clergymen—and perhaps, in future, clergywomen—are underpaid and so have difficulty in making provision for the educational, housing and financial needs of 'heir children? Will the Church Commissioners look at the whole problem sympathetically?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I hope that the details that I shall send my hon. Friend today will assist him. I should draw attention to the stalwart and splendid work of the Clergy Orphans Corporation, which, in 1983, disbursed £157,000 on behalf of orphans. That is no mean figure. I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend would draw attention to that work.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am very sad to hear my hon. Friend's reply. These days extreme pressure is put on clergymen and it is a fact of life that some die in office. Many children who are now in school may have to leave because the Church Commissioners are unable to find the funds. I hope that something can be done by the Church Commissioners, because the education of those children could be interrupted. As one who went to a school attended by many clergymen's sons, I know that such schools are invaluable to them for their education. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his decision.

Sir William van Straubenzee: If my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind, I should be extremely sorry if he did not use me as his channel of inquiry. The commissioners are having discussions with the pensions board, and it may well be that further consideration can be given to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. and doctrinally sound Friend try to ensure that any clergymen's orphans within the diocese of Durham are brought up to believe in the virgin birth and the other essential tenets of the Christian faith?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that question had much to do with orphans.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Regional Industrial Development

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to initiate discussions with local authorities in Gwent concerning proposals contained in Cmnd. 9111, "Regional Industrial Development".

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has, I understand, offered to meet a deputation from Gwent. I shall be represented at the meeting by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate the concern of local authorities in Gwent about the thousands of jobs that have been lost, thus causing great poverty and hardship? Those local authorities have fought very hard to attract new jobs to their areas, but they now need a bit of stability in terms of regional aid, instead of further cuts and alterations. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that their voice is heard in the Cabinet when such matters are further discussed?

Mr. Edwards: Of course I understand the concern of people in Gwent and elsewhere, but as for the case for stability, even the Labour party in Wales, which has made representations during the consultation period, has called for a more selective approach, a closer linking of aid to job creation, and cost per job limits on assistance as well as maintaining the desirability of bringing service industries fully within the scope of the system. Thus, there is clear agreement right across the political spectrum about some changes, and the Government are consulting on them.

Mr. Hooson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment in Gwent can best be helped by protecting employment at the Llanwern steelworks?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Clwyd

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will recommend to the European Community that Clwyd be designated an integrated operations area.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The future of integrated operations remains under discussion within the Commission. It is too early to be considering new decisions on designation.

Dr. Marek: When the matter is considered, will the Secretary of State recommend to the European Community that Clwyd be designated an integrated operations area? Does he realise that infrastructure in Clwyd has fallen behind that in Wales generally? If he does not believe me, will he accompany me on a half-day trip so that he can see with his own eyes the point that I am making?

Mr. Edwards: I note that a report has been submitted by independent consultants on behalf of the county council recommending integrated operations for Clwyd, but it is by no means clear what integrated operations have yet been achieved in the areas to which they apply. The Government are carrying out a massive infrastructure programme in Clwyd, which includes a major road-building programme.

Council House Sales

Mr. Gwilym Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the level of service charges which would be due from council tenants of flats, following the purchase of their homes from their local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My Department has received nine letters, from or on behalf of council tenants, about the level of service charges. There is no evidence to suggest that in general the level of service charges levied by Welsh local authorities is unreasonable.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that service charges are a great disincentive? Is there any evidence that service charges in Cardiff are too high? Will he consider encouraging exchanges in order to achieve greater mobility for council flat tenants? Will he examine the possibility of the cash discount being used to purchase from the local authority or on the open market?

Mr. Roberts: Service charges cover repair and other charges. Provided that they are reasonable—that can be tested in the courts—I do not think that they are a major disincentive. The average level of service charge in Cardiff is £330 per annum. I know of three instances of service charges being as high as £900 per annum. In those cases the charge includes a substantial amount for central heating.
My hon. Friend's suggestion on cash grants would add to public expenditure. It is already possible for council flat tenants to move to council houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

European Year of Music

Sir David Price: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what steps the Government are taking to support the Council of Europe's promotion of 1985 as the European year of music.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to him on 26 March. The Government welcome the concept of the European music year and are confident that the United Kingdom committee, under the chairmanship of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, will produce a popular and diverse programme.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Euro-election cost the British taxpayer about £20 million and produced a 32 per cent. response from the public? Does he accept that if the Government spent only 10 per cent. of that—£2 million—we would get a better response from the British public for the European year of music than for the Euro-elections? Does he agree that the British public would find that music was more the food of love than Euro-elections?

Mr. Cormack: And better harmonisation too.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall leave the jokes to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I can find no ground on which to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). The Arts Council has made resources available for administration and is considering continuing that.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that this Government's and country's contribution to the European year of music represents a cut of nearly £1 million in the grant to opera and to music next year—a £711,000 cut for music and a £235,000 cut for opera? Will


the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision, because it is an inappropriate way for the Government to celebrate the European year of music?

Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making his political point. Overall, resources for the arts are being increased in the two years concerned. The distribution of resources is a matter for the Arts Council.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a pretty strange way of celebrating the European year of music if we abolished one of London's orchestras, as called for in "The Glory of the Garden" by the Arts Council?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is not the abolition of an orchestra that is spoken of in that document but the suggestion that it might move to another city. I understand that those discussions are continuing with the Arts Council.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister consider commending the possibility during this year of focusing attention on the need to encourage children to continue playing music after they have left school, given that on many occasions the encouragement given at school has no practical expression thereafter and that this is a gap in our musical system?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a sensible suggestion, but I am not sure whether it is for my noble Friend so much as for the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Arts Council (Subsidies)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts how much has been spent by the Arts Council on subsidies to opera and ballet companies in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Total Arts Council expenditure on opera and dance, including Scottish and Welsh Arts Council expenditure, was £25·07 million in 1981–82; £29·21 million in 1982–83; and £31·94 million in 1983–84.

Mr. Proctor: In view of the large sums of public money spent on, and the high price of tickets for, opera and ballet, will my hon. Friend ask the Arts Council to look at this expenditure again? Will he, in particular, explain to the Arts Council that it might be better to get some private funding for opera and ballet?

Mr. Waldegrave: Having spent last evening listening to "Cosi fan Tutti" at Glyndebourne, I assure my hon. Friend that there are considerable private resources going into opera. If my hon. Friend is asking me to speak to my noble Friend in the sense of diminishing those resources, I must give him a disappointing answer.

Mr. Dalyell: What has been the Government's response to the representations that they have had both from Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet on their financial future?

Mr. Waldegrave: Those representations are, in the first instance, for the Arts Council. I have no doubt that if representations are made to my noble Friend he will consider them seriously.

Mr. Maclean: For how long does my hon. Friend think the taxpayer can continue to subsidise Royal Opera to the

tune of £25 per ticket per performance? Does he think that it is part of his job and that of his Department to see that the many, who are taxpayers, should be made to pay for the pleasures of an elitist few?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend must have missed the recent and welcome changes in the ticket structure at Covent Garden, where an increasing number of cheap tickets are now being made available, which is a sensible policy. No country in the world can put on opera without subsidy of some kind, either through tax or by way of direct Government subsidy, so that my answer to my hon. Friend is, yes, I regard it as part of my job.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister take on board the fact that our objection is not so much to having almost one third of central Government allocations spent on opera as to the cut that that has meant for the rest of the arts in Britain? What is to happen in respect of the £34 million pledged this year to local authorities, which are the other supporters of the arts? Will that continue? The Minister for the Arts did not make that clear in the other place last week.

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, my noble Friend made it entirely clear that there was a commitment to future funding on the same sort of scale. The hon. Gentleman makes his usual cry for more money in general. Money was earmarked for opera and ballet and it was additional to the other money. Everybody would like more money for everything, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to diminish the amount that is spent on the great opera and ballet house.

"The Glory of the Garden"

Mr. Freud: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will announce the number of (a) positive and (b) negative responses he has received consequent upon the publication of "The Glory of the Garden".

Mr. Waldegrave: About 1,500 representations—mostly, as is perhaps natural, lobbying for particular organisations which are seen to be under threat—have been received.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Will he make it his constant practice to announce—even if he does not put the letters in the Library—what the reaction is for and against following publication of White Papers? Is there not unnecessary secrecy about these matters?

Mr. Waldegrave: If asked for, the information is always given to the House. We do not—this has come up in other contexts—make a practice of publishing responses, because it is not our responsibility to do that. We never disguise the weight of representations. In an exercise such as this, it is perhaps natural that there are more letters arguing for the maintenance of particular grants than there are welcoming new spending.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend conduct a tutorial with the Philistines behind me so that he can explain to them the importance of the Arts Council's interesting, challenging and slightly provocative document, and so that he can tell them that every £1 spent on these rather desirable pursuits has a much better return than most other Government expenditure?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure how one would calculate such a return, or whether it would be sensible to do so. I am sure that I can delegate this operation to my hon. Friend with great confidence.

Architecture

Mr. Chapman: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what initiatives the Office of Arts and Libraries intends to take to promote architecture.

Mr. Waldegrave: None at present, Sir.

Mr. Chapman: As it could be argued that architecture is one of the most important of the arts, as the public

cannot avoid looking at buildings, and as there is increasing public debate about the merits and demerits of modern architecture, should not my hon. Friend's Department be doing more to increase public awareness about the design of new buildings and the materials used in them?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, is holding a festival of British architecture this year, at which my noble Friend is making a speech. I shall represent to my noble Friend my hon. Friend's suggestion that more should be done in this direction.

Parliamentary Questions (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order relates to arts questions. It has been raised partially before and concerns what happens when questions to the Church Commissioners collapse before their allotted 10 minutes are over. The habit has been to revert then to the earlier questions, in today's case those on Wales. I assure my hon. Friends that I am not trying to cut out Welsh questions, but trying to draw attention to this problem, which continually diminishes the amount of time that is given to the arts at a time when there is extreme anxiety throughout the country about them, and when the Government failed dismally the week before last to give their views on the subject. Has not the time come to expand the time available for the arts, which are an important part of our civilisation?

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be in the memory of the House that when we had that admirable Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), as Minister responsible for the Arts he was actively considering trying to arrange an extension of the period for arts questions. I think that there will be universal agreement in the House that we should have a longer time for arts questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters not for the Chair, but for discussion between the usual channels.

Railway Accident (Morpeth)

Mr. Peter Snape: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement to the House about Saturday's railway accident at Morpeth, Northumberland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The accident involving Saturday's 19.50 hours sleeping car train from Aberdeen to London occurred on the tight curve on the east coast main line to the south of Morpeth station in Northumberland at about 20 minutes to 1 o'clock on Sunday 24 June. There were 76 passengers and a number of railway staff on the train. Initially 38 people were taken to hospital, but by Sunday evening only three men, all railway staff, were still detained. None of them is seriously injured.
The train left the rails near the start of the curve, which has a permanent speed restriction of 50 mph. It continued across the other line and down the embankment, turning on its side in the process. It struck two dwellings. The cause of the accident seems likely to have been excessive speed on entering the curve. The reason for this has not yet been established.
I have already appointed one of the Department of Transport's senior inspecting officers of railways to conduct an inquiry. The House will appreciate that it would be improper for me to say anything further on the reasons for the accident at this time. I naturally want to express our sympathy for those who were involved in the accident. I praise the way in which the situation was dealt with by the emergency services and local people, who immediately offered help.

Mr. Snape: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that reply. I ask him to reflect on his statement that the cause of the crash appears to be excessive speed. As his Department has appointed one of its inspectors to investigate the cause of the accident, are we not in danger of prejudging the issue by appearing to come to such a conclusion? Is it true that the site of the accident was the site of a similar and, regrettably, even more dangerous accident in 1969? Does the Minister know of any plans by British Rail to ease the curvature and increase the speed limit on the curve?
Bearing in mind the history of this stretch of line, may we have an assurance that the inquiry will be held in public?
Will there be compensation for householders whose property has been damaged as a result of the accident?
Finally, I ask the Minister to comment on the strength of modern British Rail rolling stock. Despite the apparent severity of the accident, every passenger has been released from hospital. Is that not a credit to British Rail Engineering Ltd., which built the rolling stock?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is correct. A derailment took place on this stretch of line on 7 May 1969. It was inquired into by the then chief inspecting officer of railways, Colonel Robertson, who concluded that the accident was caused by a lapse of concentration on the part of the driver. It would be wrong for me to speculate further on the cause of the latest accident.
As to proposals for altering the line, we should await the result of the inquiry, which I assure the hon. Gentleman will be held in public.
Claims for compensation of this nature are met by British Rail, which has a good record for doing so responsibly.
The rolling stock involved was some of the new sleeping car rolling stock. I agree that it has been shown to have great strength. That is a matter on which those at British Rail Engineering Ltd. who built it should be congratulated, although it is a pity the strength of its construction has been demonstrated in such unfortunate circumstances.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am sure that the whole House will share the deep sympathy that has been expressed for those involved in the accident.
As British Rail's safety record in 1982 was the best that it had ever had, I ask my hon. Friend to see that no pressure is put on the management of BR, as a result of this investigation, to tell staff to make up time. If it is found on any occasion that someone is falling behind time, the time should not be made up at the expense of safety. Safety should always be paramount.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to those injured and inconvenienced by what occurred. British Rail, the whole House and I share his sentiments.
The safety record of British Rail is outstanding. Both management and staff have reason to be proud of it. Whether BR's disciplinary procedures in relation to late trains may or may not be a contributory factor is a question for the inquiry, and it would not be right for me to comment on it today.

Mr. John Ryman: As the disaster occurred only a few miles from my constituency, may I endorse the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's tribute to the ambulance and fire services and to the local people who gave their help?
Will the Minister clarify his statement on two points? In the 1969 disaster involving the Aberdonian, six people were killed and 120 injured on the same notorious Morpeth curve. Have any steps been taken by British Rail to make the curve less dangerous?
Secondly, why is it that the Minister, who is appointing a board of inquiry to investigate the disaster, has expressed an opinion about the possible cause of the disaster? He alluded to excess speed. There are many other causes that could have contributed to the disaster.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for concurring with my view about the help provided by the emergency services and by local people. I endorse his remarks.
As he says, a previous accident occurred on this curve. In this case the train was travelling south and before reaching the site of the accident would have passed speed limit indications saying "Reduce to 80 miles an hour", "Reduce to 70 miles an hour", and "Reduce to 50 miles an hour". The operating instructions should therefore be adequate to prevent an accident involving excessive speed. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, it may be better that

I should leave these matters to the inquiry than that I should speculate on them now or follow other hon. Members in doing so.

Mr. Robert Adley: Everyone feels sympathy for those involved in an accident such as this. Is it not an unspoken compliment to British Rail's safety record that accidents such as this are occasions for a private notice question, at a time when 16 people are killed and 900 maimed every day on our roads? When will we impose the same safety standards on road users as British Rail is forced to impose on its trains?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that may hon. Friend would expect me to give him a detailed answer, but I take his point. It is a sign of how safe rail travel is compared with other options.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I wish to associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who is at the scene of the accident—with the congratulations and thanks expressed to the local people and emergency services.
The Minister referred to apparent excessive speed. Is any automatic train control device available that could give audible warning of excessive speed? In view of the security and amazing stability of the coaches made by BREL, will there be any impact on other services from the lack of availability of those vehicles? No doubt that has a deleterious effect elsewhere.
Will the Minister ensure that the report is published in good time, and that it will not take at as long as some reports? That is especially important because of the number of accidents at Morpeth. I understand that some reports have taken up to three years to publish.

Mr. Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman's question about automatic devices relating to the speed of trains, we must wait for the inquiry. The non-availability of rolling stock is a matter for the management of BR. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to its attention. The inquiry will take place in July and we shall ensure that its results are published as soon as they are available.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the regrettable accident and the quality of the carriages that prevented an even greater disaster.
Will the Minister withdraw his outrageous and scandalous remark about the accident appearing to be due to excessive speed, and then saying that there will be an inquiry? The Opposition would be a great deal happier if he would withdraw his remark.

Mr. Mitchell: I cannot unsay what I have said. I am advised that I have given the correct information to the House. The inquiry will examine all aspects of the accident. However, we already know that there was no track failure, because we have had time to examine the track and assure ourselves on that point.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a regular user of that line, I should like to know when it is expected that repairs will be completed. I realise that that may be difficult.
The Minister has handsomely congratulated BREL on its excellent workmanship. Should we not, therefore, think


again about putting work to some of the outside contractors when that work has been traditionally carried out and could still be carried out by BREL with its expertise?

Mr. Mitchell: BR expects to open the line to traffic by early tomorrow morning. It should be congratulated on that. In the meantime, trains are being diverted to a route usually used only for freight trains, the Blythe Tyne line, which is adding about one hour to the journey——

Mr. Frank Dobson: It is a good thing that the line is still there.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have given British Rail objectives which set out quite clearly that there is to be no programme of major route closures. Therefore, he should not be surprised that the line is still there.
It does not matter whether the purchase of rolling stock comes from one firm or another. The specifications on the strength and general requirements are those of BR's own designs.

Dr. John Marek: In view of BR's excellent safety record, can the Minister assure us that any new rolling stock for British Rail will be built to the same design, specification and strength as the carriages that crashed in this unfortunate accident?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot conceivably give him that assurance, because what is required for an express sleeper train is very different from that required for a rail bus on a provincial line, travelling at relatively low speed. I should mislead the House if I were to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that people in my constituency in north-east England are worried about the disposal of nuclear waste? After the accident that could not happen at Abbeystead, and now this accident, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to persuade our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek an early decision in Cabinet on this vexed question, which is affecting every one of my constituents in north-east England?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a completely different question. I shall write to my hon. Friend about it.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

PROVISION OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(7) The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the transport needs of Greater London is a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public passenger transport service; for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.'

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, (a) in line 6, at end add
'and where necessary, including the provisions of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities. '.
It is unfortunate that the timing of private business may split this debate on the Lords amendments. I shall therefore try to facilitate the procedures of the House by not taking too long in considering the amendments. There is a broad measure of agreement about many aspects of the amendments. That agreement reflects much of what was said in Committee and the views which the Government accepted in another place.
We are talking about half the cake. The Committee discussed helping the disabled to be recognised as a special group of people requiring special assistance to deal with the problems which they face as a group. The disabled—I believe that there are a quarter of a million disabled people in London—believe that the amendment is essential so that their needs as Londoners are adequately met by the new London Regional Transport body and so that the LRT meets its obligations, for the time being, with regard to the transport needs of Greater London. The amendment to the Lords amendment was debated in another place and was rejected by the Government. We are now considering two parts of the same proposal. The original amendment was passed by the other place to improve the Bill.
On 2 February 1984 the Minister of State told the Committee:
I have purposely resisted adding to LRT's general duties as proposed by amendment No. 16. My experience has been that this is not the best way to help these people, given all the other things that we shall be doing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 February 1984; c. 195–96.]
The general proposition put by the Minister was that it was not necessary to select the disabled for special treatment. Clause 2 deals with those matters that LRT'
shall have due regard to".
We note that the Government have finally accepted our arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there is a special reason for LRT to take particular account of the disabled so that the required changes and atmosphere are considered in LRT's decision-making process.
One of the matters that concerned the various disablement groups—Dial-a-Ride was one of many—


was whether we would fundamentally change the duties of LRT, compared with the duties of London Transport, to meet the transport needs of Greater London. At present, a duty is imposed on London Transport. Under the legisation "due regard" is to be shown by LRT. The Government constantly resisted the idea of imposing a statutory duty on London Transport. "Due regard" is a weakened interpretation of the role, and many disablement groups feel that "due regard" is all that will be taken of their needs. They feel that special measures should be adopted to ensure they are treated properly and fairly in comparison with other Londoners in whatever transport provision is made for Londoners.
The disabled refuse to accept that the relatively uncontroversial Lords amendment should be included in LRT's general duties. They feel that
special transport facilities should be provided for people with particular disabilities.
I welcome the fact that the Government have gone some way at least towards accepting the first part of the case that disabled people should be given general consideration.
Our amendment makes it clear that
the provision of special transport facilities for those with particular disabilities
should be added to the amendment from the other place. In another place, the Government took the view that it was not their responsibility to meet the needs in that way and argued that it was the responsibility of local authorities. Many of the 250,000 disabled Londoners feel that they are denied proper public transport facilities. They believe that LRT must not be able to duck out of its obligation to improve the design standard and service planning of buses and trains to meet the needs of the disabled. Such improvements benefit all public transport users.
The Government argue that the London boroughs are the proper bodies to provide transport for disabled people, but we believe that that is a fallacious argument, because it is discriminatory. All other aspects of transport are dealt with by LRT. The obligation upon LRT is to provide for the needs of Londoners. Groups representing the disabled believe that special efforts must be made to meet their needs.
The argument used in the other place against my amendment was that London local authorities had no experience of running public transport, and that is generally the case, but if we are looking to the integrated nature of London transport and to the disabled receiving proper and adequate treatment, we cannot leave it to the boroughs, whatever their political complexion, to determine the provision for the disabled in their areas. That is another argument against borough boundaries. It is felt that local authority boundaries tend to determine the services in an area. They are generally irrelevant to the transport needs of the disabled, who plainly wish to travel in areas of London beyond the immediate local authority boundaries.
The Dial-a-Ride scheme must be funded centrally if it is to survive, let alone expand. One must consider how the scheme has been financed so far. Local authorities have been providing only about 6 or 8 per cent. of the money needed—£121,000 comes from three local authorities mainly—and the GLC provides about £1·6 million. There is a precept from the local authorities and therefore they all contribute, but those local authorities which have

contributed extra, such as Islington, have played a major part in establishing and maintaining the facilities which are much appreciated by the disabled.
Most of the financial support comes from the GLC, which the Government are proposing to abolish. We have had no guarantees from the Government of other sources of funding for this important scheme. It is somewhat ironic that the Government should claim that running the scheme should be a function of the boroughs, at the same time as the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking what measures he can severely to restrict the spending of those boroughs.
I have read the debates in the other place and the press notices published recently by the Department of Transport—I have one dated 22 June—and considerable sympathy was expressed in the House of Lords and by the Minister of State, who I see was speaking recently at a lunch financed by the GLC at Dean's yard, Westminster.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It was a press launch.

4 pm

Mr. Prescott: One to the Minister. The hon. Lady stressed at the launch of Westminster's Dial-a-Ride scheme that
this was not an occasion for political dissension".
I am bound to say that it is. The difference comes when one votes on the matter. The Government can accept only half the amendments, which were advocated mainly by disablement groups. The Minister probably heard at the launch words to the effect that, although the Government do not accept the amendments, there should be a general responsibility for the disabled and that the Secretary of State should recognise the needs of disabled people. The Government have gone part of the way and have recognised and picked out the disabled as a special group of workers and a special obligation is placed upon London Regional Transport to provide for their needs. It will provide the special facilities needed by the disabled which, are not usually provided.
We recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister, to which the hon. Lady, referred at the launch of the national advisory unit for community transport, will provide greater advice and co-ordination. That will be welcomed to all concerned, but the measures will create obligations and must be paid for. At the end of the day, such schemes cost money. I assume that if they did not cost money the Minister would look upon them more favourably. The hon. Lady tells us constantly, in Committee and from the Dispatch Box, that she spends much of her time dealing with disabled people, but I must tell her—the Secretary of State will know of this from a rough meeting that he attended—that the disabled are not at all happy with the way in which the Government are meeting the needs of the disabled in London.
The Government now feel—perhaps the Secretary of State has some experience of the strength of feeling among the disabled following the rough ride that he had at that meeting—that "disabled" should be written into the Bill, despite refusing to do so in Committee or even in the House on previous occasions. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that. I do not doubt the Minister of State's commitment to doing something for disabled people, but in reality the judgment of what needs to be done must be based on the views of the disabled.
The Minister has gone so far as to say that disabled people are a special category, so we ask her to recognise that the general powers to be imposed upon the transport authority provide a strong case for giving disabled people the limited means, within their disabilities, of travelling around London. Only if we discriminate in their favour can we hope to meet their transport needs, at least in some small measure, as we have done for all Londoners in the Bill.

Mrs. Chalker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if you would agree that I should move that this House doth agree with Lords amendment No. 1 so that it can be taken in conjunction with amendment (a). That would allow for a proper debate on the whole issue.

Mr. Speaker: The amendments are linked, and the hon. Lady may talk to the Lords amendment. There is no need, at this juncture, to move the Question suggested by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification.
I understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has moved the amendment to Lords amendment No. 1. I shall come to that in a moment, but first I shall speak to the Lords amendment, which contains an important provision. It fulfils an undertaking that was given in another place. There has been no doubt about the strong feeling about the Bill expressed on both sides of the House that disabled people should be referred to explicitly in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded us that we did not feel able to agree to the suggestion, which was made at earlier stages of the Bill, that LRT should have a duty to meet the needs of the disabled. We felt that that would have been incompatible with the rest of the amendment and, indeed, with other groups.
Lords amendment No. 1 makes it absolutely clear that the needs of disabled people, no matter how severe their disability, are included in the reference to the transport needs of Greater London and that LRT must have due regard to them in carrying out its general duty under clause 2.
Lords amendment No. 1 is backed by other provisions that were put into the Bill. LRT is required to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action that it has taken in relation to public transport services and facilities for disabled people. That amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and will ensure that LRT has a clear remit to develop and improve those services within the resources available.
I welcomed that amendment when it was introduced. There is a clear duty upon LRT in relation to the design of and access to different modes of transport to fulfil the needs of the disabled. There is also a clear duty, which will be spelt out for the members of the board in due course, to get on with all they can do to help.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that we must get this straight. The Minister says that LRT will have a duty, but I understand that she has resisted the use of that very word in the statute. Is she saying that "have

regard" will mean that LRT has a duty to continue the Dial-a-Ride scheme to the extent, say, that the GLC is doing now?

Mrs. Chalker: I should know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can be very quick at twisting words. I do not think that he intended to do so. If I misled him, I must apologise.
I must tell the hon Gentleman that LRT is required by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, which was taken on Report, to make a statement about its action in any previous year concerning its public transport services and facilities for disabled people.
I went on to say—I was not using "duty" in the sense of the words in the statute per se—that it must be incumbent upon LRT in all common sense to examine the design of and access to the different modes of transport as part of its job. Otherwise, it could not make a report that would reflect its instructions and objectives. I do not think that there is any difference between us. I shall come to the point about Dial-a-Ride in a moment.
It will be clear that LRT will work towards developing and improving services for the disabled. Some services are capable of improvement. I told the Committee, however, that some deep underground stations would not be accessible by wheelchair unless they were rebuilt completely at that point. Nobody has ever suggested that one could make the whole of the public transport system accessible to chairbound people.
LRT will have a general duty under clause 2 to have due regard to the needs of disabled people. That duty already includes care for those who depend upon the special services, as well as those who are less severely disabled but who have difficulty in using buses or underground trains. It applies equally to the elderly and to mothers with prams and small children.
I am well aware of the importance of LRT having powers to enable it, where appropriate, to offer technical assistance and advice, or even financial support if it deems that that is required, to those who provide specialist services for the disabled. Here, I include schemes such as the various Dial-a-Ride operations and the GLC's taxi card scheme for the disabled. It remains my view that it is for local authorities to identify the special needs of the severely disabled. I say this particularly because it is not reasonable to require the LRT board to identify those people and their special needs. The people who are best placed to do so are the London boroughs, which in any case deal with needs other than transport for the very same people.
However, what we are after is getting LRT to play an active part in any provision that is subsequently made, to the extent that is appropriate in discharging its general duty. I believe that that is realistic in the light of the resources available and that it is the best that we can do to help those who are disabled, because——

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I should like to finish what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak.
It is absolutely clear that LRT will not be set up to identify the need, but the London boroughs can and should identify the need. At a later stage, the various ways of


fulfilling that need can be considered by both the London boroughs and LRT. There is no reason why that cannot happen.
The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned Dial-a-Ride straight away, which is understandable. There are good schemes, not just in, but outside, London. Some of them are very much more expensive than others, and I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that. A fund of good experience is available. The reason that I agreed to set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport was to bring together the best practice and knowledge so that they can be used for all disabled people in London as well as outside and so that there is an exchange of that information.
Hon. Members might have lost sight of the fact that the money that the GLC is currently using to fund the Dial-a-Ride services has come from the boroughs through the GLC precept. That resource will be available to the individual boroughs, and they can—I am certain that they will—allocate on the basis of their assessment of the needs and priorities.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Really.

Mrs. Chalker: However much the hon. Gentleman may tut-tut, I know full well that the London boroughs that are concerned about the issue and have Dial-a-Ride schemes in their areas are looking to the future of those schemes in a positive sense. For that reason the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but to resist the addition, which imposes an extra duty on LRT, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. There is no way in which that can be fully carried out by a nationalised industry, but there is every way in which the boroughs should identify the need. LRT can work, through design and access to its own modes of transport, towards increasing the number of people who can use its public transport over the years. If there were small adjustments in the facilities, many people would be able to use public transport in future.
Therefore, I advise my colleagues to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but I do not believe that we would serve any good purpose, other than raising expectations in a way that, practicably, cannot be fulfilled, by agreeing to amendment (a). Therefore, I advise the House to resist amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The fundamental reason why the Liberal party supports the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is—the Secretary of State often used to disagree with our interpretation of what might happen—that we do not trust LRT to do things that, in statute, it is not bound to do or have due regard to. In Committee, on a regular basis, members of the Labour party and of my party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), sought to move amendments that would write into the statute duties and considerations for LRT to bear in mind. One of the most important areas in which we sought to tie down the body that is to become LRT was in relation to the disabled.
It has already been correctly established that we are talking not about a statutory duty but about a consideration

that the board must take into account. We know that, as the Bill stood before it was amended in the other place, it was a fairly broad-brush approach and the duty on LRT was much less demanding than all of us in the Opposition wished. It limited the new LRT to the least duty any transport authority has ever had in London, when catering for the needs of its people. LRT simply had to
have due regard to—
(a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and
(b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation."
The latter is the dangerous thin end of the wedge.
The Lords added that the first words should be interpreted specifically as a reference
to the needs of Greater London with respect to public transport services for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.
The amendment seeks to make sure that there is provision
of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities.
The tragedy is that the Minister's resistance to the amendment flies in the face of the logic of the argument that she advanced throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. The specific reason is this. The Government eventually accepted that if local authorities did not agree on a single concessionary fares scheme, there would have to be a reserve power in LRT—for the Secretary of State—to implement a single unitary scheme. The Government accepted that 32 boroughs plus the City of London could not have separate schemes.
The Minister said that, in transport matters, she believed that it was proper that the local authorities should take into account and therefore seek to provide for the needs of the disabled. That is inconsistent because, first, they are not the transport authority and, second, it is ludicrous for one borough to be planning without regard to what the other boroughs are doing. We have all received letters from the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides. In my borough of Southwark, as in all other boroughs, there are disablement associations. Those bodies talk to each other, surprising though it may seem. They can agree on what they need and want on behalf of those with different types of disability across London. It is irrelevant and inconsistent—I exclude reasons of economic constraint, which have been alluded to—for the Government to say that the boroughs alone must be allowed to make provision.
It is clear to all of us that borough boundaries are normally irrelevant for disabled as well as able people, when they are travelling. People do not decide to get off public transport if they know that they will cross from Southwark to Lambeth, Lewisham or Greenwich. They have work to do and friends and relatives to visit across London. That is why London Transport has grown to be a united transport system. Therefore, it is appropriate that the transport authority, whatever it be and whatever reservations many of us have about the new authority, has a co-ordinated approach, which is established in statute.
I ask the Minister to think again and to apply logic to her case. Boroughs, through their social services departments or otherwise, will always arrange additional facilities, if they have the money. Where they can, they will support facilities for the disabled through grants, as they do for other groups in respect of which they have a duty. However, that does not mean that they exclusively must have that job. Amendments were accepted by the Government in Committee that stated that as long as the


GLC existed—the Bill will come into force when the GLC is still in existence, whatever happens later—we must take account of the fact that that body is there and plan for its continuation, unless and until the House of Commons and the other place decide otherwise. It is inconsistent for the Government to anticipate that after the GLC is abolished, only the boroughs will be involved. It is inconsistent with what the Minister eventually accepted as proper as a result of amendments tabled by her hon. Friends in Committee and, because it will not assist the coordination of transport facilities for the disabled in London.
Two days before the European elections, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and I visited an institution called Lambeth Accord, which was set up with funding from the European Community. It is temporarily housed in a hospital building in Lambeth and is about to move to its own premises. It seeks to allow the disabled to work and to provide the transport facilities necessary for them to get to work, and to get home easily. The disabled are an enormous resource for London in terms of services, work and provision, and they form a large group of people whose needs we should recognise more than we have done in the past.
Generally the Minister has a good record on the disabled. Will she agree that it is consistent with what she accepted that we should do, with the Government's attitude in Committee and with trying to give the new nationalised industry a human face, that she should accept amendment (a) and not divide the House on it?

Mr. Tom Cox: I give my full support to amendment (a). In Committee there were many debates about the provision of services for disabled people in London. Our country can take credit for the fact that recently much progress has been made in the development of a wide range of services for disabled people. That is how it should be. Disabled people have the same rights as able people. Many of them are taxpayers, almost all of them are ratepayers, and they therefore have a right to seek improved services to help them enjoy life more fully.
However, I must remind the Minister, who talked about the role of local authorities in the development of transport services for the disabled, that in many debates on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill hon. Members from all parties argued time and time again that if those services were left to certain local authorities to provide, nothing would ever be done. We know that for a fact. Throughout the country some authorities, irrespective of their political points of view, have provided services, but sadly many Conservative authorities have made only token improvements and done little to improve those services. Successive Governments have believed that services should be improved, but when they were pressed—as the Minister is being pressed—to include specific provisions in a Bill, those provisions were rejected. The outcome of that has been that authorities have said, "We have sympathy, but we cannot do anything about it."
The weakness of the Minister's argument lies in leaving it to the 32 London boroughs to organise an economical service for the disabled. Although the hon. Lady is not a London Member, she is familiar with the London scene and has lived here for many years. She cannot believe in her heart of hearts that those 32 boroughs of different

political persuasions will agree that there is no need to write a particular provision into the Bill because they are committed to helping the disabled.
It is to the credit of the Greater London council that it has made progress in providing services for the disabled, especially the Dial-a-Ride service. It does not operate in all boroughs, but that is no reason to criticise it, because services must be developed. Where it does exist, it has brought great benefits to the disabled. For the first time they have been able to leave their homes and travel across London to see friends and relatives. It has given them a great feeling of independence. Sadly, they know that the provision is now under threat. They cannot use the bus and underground services. I have received letters—many hon. Members who represent London constituencies will also have received letters—which have spoken in glowing terms of that service. That is why it is so tragic that we are still fighting the Minister for a provision which gives a clear commitment to the continuation of such services.
Hon. Members need only look at the record of the 32 London boroughs to have the gravest doubts whether this service will continue. Many of them will say, "We are sympathetic, but because of the Government's policies on rate capping, we shall have less money available to spend on our responsibilities and we shall not have sufficient funds to continue to pay for a service such as Dial-a-Ride."
The borough of Wandsworth, where the Minister once lived, even before we ask what contribution it will make to the continuation of the Dial-a-Ride service, is cutting its grants to services for the elderly, such as those provided by Age Concern and Taskforce. Those organisations have proved themselves in their work for the elderly. and their grants, which are essential if they are to provide the services needed by the elderly, are being cut. If that borough were asked to contribute, we know what its answer would be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the GLC contributed about £1,600,000 to the Dial- a-Ride service from its rate precept. Because the GLC had the funds, it had the commitment to develop this service. Even if the GLC had not received the money by the rate precept and the money ramained in the hands of the local treasurers of the local authorities, the boroughs would not have met and said, "The GLC could have levied the rate precept on us to provide a service, but it did not, so we shall do it ourselves." The Minister of State knows that that is impossible. The record clearly shows that.
4.30 pm
This is our opportunity to write into the Bill a provision that will not only continue the existing service but allow for its development. If no such provision is inserted, there is no doubt that the service will begin to break down and that, in a matter of months, the service as we know it will no longer exist. Recently, the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides said:
London-wide services are the only way of providing us with the special services that many of us need and with the integration that all of us need, and on the basis of a lower overall cost than fragmented borough services. We need public transport services at public transport fares, not an approach which regards us as social service cases.
That organisation is in daily contact with those who use the Dial-a-Ride service, and it strengthens the point that I made earlier: since the service was introduced, many


people are now independent enough to leave their homes and visit their friends, which was impossible for them previously.
We spend enormous amounts of money on space development and employ many highly qualified people in it. Are we really saying that we cannot provide a properly integrated transport service for London that will meet the needs of the disabled? That is what we are being told by the Minister today. Anyone can become disabled—I hope that it does not happen to any of us in the House—and Members of Parliament constantly come across cases of people who were fit and active suddenly, through illness or an accident, becoming disabled. What right do we have to say to them, "Now that you are disabled you cannot expect services similar to those which you enjoyed when you were fit and active."? If the Government do not move towards obliging the new transport authority to provide those services, it will not be long before they disappear.
If the Minister rejects the amendment, she and the Secretary of State should bow their heads in shame. By rejecting the amendment, they will serve a sentence on the disabled to be confined to their homes indefinitely. What the Minister will not accept is that once the provision is written into the Bill it will be the financial responsibility of an authority with the overall ability to run and develop services. Left to the boroughs, there can be no doubt—many Opposition Members can speak from experience of what already happens in their boroughs—that the service will be killed off. It will be a damning indictment of the Government if the services which the disabled wish to see extended and developed are allowed to die.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This debate is on a short amendment and, with other hon. Members, I welcome Lords amendment No. 1. When pressure is put upon Members of Parliament by their constituents and by organisations, in many cases it results in us seeking to make it imperative for the Government to act. There are two classic ways out for the Government, one of which we are discussing now. Instead of using words such as "impose a duty", they prefer to use "have regard to". The other classic way out is that if an Act puts a statutory responsibility upon bodies, the Government's plea is to make that duty not obligatory but voluntary. More escape routes have been found with that plea than with any other.
I must be telepathic because I start with a point similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I draw a parallel between this amendment and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on which, like every other Bill concerned with health for the past 25 years, I served in Committee. This amendment seeks to do precisely what we sought to do in Committee and on Report of that Act with regard to local authorities catering for the needs of the disabled when granting planning permission. At that time a Labour Government were in power and they resisted their own Back-Bench amendment just as the Minister is resisting ours this afternoon. That is not a critical point, because Departments and Ministers tend always to resist such amendments, whichever party is in power.
In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we sought to oblige local authorities to provide facilities for the disabled in every public place, but when the Act came

onto the statute book it contained a phrase similar to the ones put forward by the Minister this afternoon—"take into consideration" or "have regard to". That Act was passed 14 years ago, but planning permission is still given for supermarkets, stores and other public buildings without adequate consideration being given to the needs of the disabled. The Minister has come once again to the Dispatch Box and said things like, "We shall keep this in mind." I trust the hon. Lady and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, I hold her in high regard. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) appealed to her to use her logic. I hope that she will do that, and I believe that I can rely on her compassion. But she will be applying neither logic nor compassion to this amendment. She will apply the Whips, and we cannot win because when the Division is called the party vote will be mobilised against the amendment.
I have been proud to be associated with the Greater London Association for the Disabled, which has the good fortune to have the acronym GLAD. I am even more proud of the association in Brent. Unfortunately its initials are BAD, but there is nothing bad about the Brent Association for the Disabled. It does a tremendous job of work. There is profound concern in both organisations about London Transport's facilities for those who are unfortunate enough to be disabled in one way or another and about the improvement of those facilities which is so necessary in a compassionate and affluent society.
Let me give one example. Invariably, when we think of the disabled we think of those who are paraplegic or about access to places such as lavatories by those in wheelchairs. I am much involved with another group—the blind. As the House knows, I have introduced a number of measures in the House in order to help those people. Mobility for them creates a different set of problems. It is no good "having regard to" those problems. We have a duty to blind people. As has been mentioned, the disabled pay both taxes and rates. More important, such people should not be put into ghettos. As long as they can work, they should be treated as normal members of the community. The ability of the blind to work depends upon their mobility. Unfortunately, given the present unemployment, twice as many blind people are unemployed compared with the national average in every area where statistics are available. One reason for that is that when there is unemployment the disabled or the blind are likely to go to the wall first. Such people cannot continue in employment unless they can get there. Therefore, to talk about "having regard to" is no good. A duty must be laid upon the new London Transport organisation if we are to get what we want.
I draw the attention of the House to the innovation just opposite St. Margaret's, where a section of the pavement has been altered. I give credit to the Minister because she had much influence in getting that experiment underway. If that experiment is a success for the blind—I believe that it will be—is it not incumbent upon the new LRT to take similar steps to assist people on underground stations so that they know where they can board the train?
For 50 years my constituency built London Transport buses. Unfortunately, as a result of BL's mismanagement, although we were making £4 million a year profit, that factory had to be closed in order to make way for Minis. The London Transport Board was directly involved in the design of buses for the disabled, not just for the disabled of one borough but for the disabled all over London. There


were two major centres. One was the making of buses at Park Royal in my constituency and the other was at Chiswick, where buses were repaired, altered and adapted. There, time after time, I had some small influence in the building of buses, backed by organisations for the disabled and the trade unions. I was able to bring together the people who made the buses, the Vehicle Builders Trades Union, those who controlled them—the London Transport Executive—and the disabled who needed the services. That cannot be divided between 32 boroughs.
The Minister chose her words carefully. I always listen to her with great care. She does not drop many bricks; like all of us, she drops a few from time to time, but rarely. She made it abundantly clear that diagnosis is the responsibility of 32 London boroughs but that treatment is for the centre. If one applied the logic of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that would not exist. Information should be correlated with those who have responsibility for building and running a transport system in order to produce treatment for the needs diagnosed.
As I said, this has been a classic debate. I know of a number of statutes which have been passed by the House which include a similar escape clause, making something desirable but not obligatory. I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the legislation establishing the GLC, as was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that he is now engaged in disestablishing it. Precisely the same problem arose then. A centralised expertise was needed to deal with disabled people because there are areas which cannot be dealt with in a small community. Once the GLC was established there had to be liaison with local boroughs in order to marry the needs of the disabled in between six and 10 local boroughs. Why have more and more liaison committees? Like most hon. Members, I have my prejudices. One is against liaison committees which seem to create more and more work, minutes and administrators. If only one went to the heart of the problem they would not be needed.
4.45 pm
The Minister is resisting the opportunity to impose a duty upon the centre rather than having a series of liaison committees. I fear that the dreaded lurgi of the House—the Whips' Office—will impose the whip. The Prime Minister, with her majority in the country, will say that the Government have a mandate. But people do not want the facilities for the mobility of the disabled to be affected in such a way as to exclude them from the community. As far as possible, we try to treat both the mentally and physically disabled exactly the same as everybody else. I urge the Minister to have a rapid talk with the Chief Whip and to tell him that she cannot stand it any more and will concede the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: I had hoped that some Conservative Members would have spoken on this matter. I cannot believe that every Conservative Member is opposed to amendment (a). It makes a lot of sense. We have had many such arguments in Committee. Then and again during the brief debate this afternoon, Labour Members have paid due credit to the Minister for her great concern for disabled people. Before I join in that chorus I want to suggest that the Minister cannot will the ends without also willing the means. If she really wants to go down in transport history as the person who had so much regard for the disabled, she should do something

more positive about it by writing into the Bill a statutory provision, to be imposed upon LRT. As far as I can see, the Minister wants it all ways. She wants to use the honeyed words but does not want to be seen to be delivering the goods—or perhaps she cannot. I certainly accept her good intentions, but, as has been said before, Ministers change.
The Act is what we are then left with, and it has to be interpreted. Within a short space of time—who knows?—the Minister might become the Secretary of State for the Environment—I understand that the Government are looking round for one at the moment—and the new person in the Ministry of Transport might not have the current Minister's concern for people with disabilities. Thus there is no substitute for having this written into the Act. All the good intentions and words in the House amount to nothing when the Act is read at a later date. The Minister said that LRT will be required to make a statement on what it has done. However, as Opposition Members have said, a statement might amount to the fact that it has done nothing, or has considered the problems but found that it cannot afford to do anything.
The Minister said that local authorities would have the responsibility of identifying the needs of the seriously disabled and those with disability in their areas. This will vary markedly from borough to borough. In any case, the boroughs are not transport authorities. People with disabilities have a right to have access to public transport. This should not be a bit of charity that is handed out to them as a concession. It is therefore the responsibility of the transport authority to identify the demands upon it by people with disabilities, and to provide transport resources accordingly. It is not the responsibility of the boroughs. A statutory obligation should be placed on the transport authority to preserve the schemes that already exist in London and to continue to develop them. In London, as elsewhere, it is clear that we do not do enough for the transport needs of people with disabilities. We compare unfavourably with countries and cities abroad. To its credit, the GLC launched a major programme of experimental initiatives in 1982. This has made great advances in the provision of transport facilities for people with disabilities. Little, if anything, was done previously. Much remains to be done.
Opposition Members are concerned that all the work that has been done will begin to disappear as the individual boroughs are given responsibility. It is the responsibility of the transport undertaking to cater for the needs of all Londoners, including those with disabilities.
The Minister said that the boroughs will consider ways of maintaining the various schemes. We know the difference in the attitude of the boroughs. The Minister said that, if the GLC is abolished, the boroughs will have that much more money in hand to maintain the schemes, thus making a crude trade-off between precept and extra balances in hand. It will not work out like that. The Minister ignores the redistributive effect of having a regional authority like the GLC. It is not just a question of taking from one borough in precept and giving it back by way of a scheme for people with disability. The GLC precepts across the whole of London, and some boroughs have greater problems than others. The GLC is able to use that large rate base provided by the City, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden to redistribute across London as a whole. The boroughs will not have that much more money in hand to meet services that the GLC will


no longer provide if and when it is abolished. In addition, there is the prospect of rate capping, which will impose burdens upon the boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) represents Wandsworth in this House, and I represent that borough at county hall. We know what that local authority is like. I can assure the House that any extra money that Wandsworth can get will go not towards providing transport schemes for the disabled or for the elderly, but towards reducing the rate demand.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman says that London boroughs will not have additional funds to meet such obligations, but the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" makes it clear that the rate equalisation scheme will be adjusted to take account of the redistributive effect of the GLC rate, and no borough would be financially disadvantaged as a result of the change.

Mr. Banks: I will believe that when I see it. The White Paper says nothing about rate-capping, because it was not envisaged at that time, but it must be added into the equation.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I do not think that any hon. Members, however generous and determined to help severely disabled people and disabled people to use London transport in its various forms, can lose sight of the fact that resources have to be made available and that the best people to decide what the needs of the disabled people are must be the local authorities nearest to them. I will not enter the discussion that started between my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the GLC ceases to exist, the money that is precepted by it from the boroughs at present will be available for the boroughs to allocate on the basis of their assessment of the priorities.
I fully accept that Dial-a-Ride in the many different areas provides a valuable service, but the costs vary greatly between one area and another. That is one reason why I set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport, to try to make better use of the resources that are already going into it. If its work comes to the fruition that I know that it can, many schemes will be able to bring down their costs, which will make the boroughs even more willing to carry on the schemes, and give them a long-term future.
I understand the analogy that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sought to make. To the extent that there is an analogy with concessionary fares, I would make the same comment that I made earlier on the subject. Local authorities should have the prime responsibility. The equivalent provision would have to be a fall-back scheme for the severely disabled, which is considerably different from what amendment (a) proposes. Even if such an amendment had been tabled, we could not have supported it. Provision for the severely disabled is not like concessionary fares, where the nature of the need is a simple financial one. The nature of the needs of severely disabled people is much more complicated. That is what I sought to say earlier.
Disabled people are far better qualified to judge—and that means contact at the local authority level—how

the money should be spent upon them. I want the boroughs that have been pioneers to continue to take the lead. Perhaps one day a scheme will be organised jointly by the boroughs, but the Bill is not the place to introduce such a provision, let alone to introduce it as a duty on London regional transport. That is where the analogy falls down.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) knows the reality of the situation. He made some kind remarks for which I thank him. I understand the anxieties of the Greater London Association for the Disabled and the Brent Association for the Disabled, and the anxieties of other severely disabled people. The hon. Gentleman made some valuable points. He gave an example of something which, thanks to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, we are using in Westminster—the tactile pavement. It is for London Regional Transport at least to have knowledge of what can be done. We shall be encouraging it to do that. It is not for London Regional Transport to have a duty towards the severely disabled when the boroughs know best what can most assist the severely disabled.
I suppose that it is not surprising in such a debate that the Opposition have ignored the positive advances that the Bill makes on transport for the disabled in London. For the first time, London Regional Transport, unlike LTE, will have to report annually on the steps that it has taken in respect of the disabled.

Mr. Cohen: rose——

5 pm

Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way, as I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious for me to conclude.
I have already announced that the London Regional Passengers Committee will have representatives on it to put forward the needs of the disabled both to British Rail and LRT, whom it will serve. In Lords amendment No. 1, we take yet a further step to help the disabled. In addition, a member of the LRT board—that main board of 12 people—will be given the responsibility of paying due regard to the needs of the disabled as well as those of the rest of the travelling public. It is not a statutory requirement, but I have decided that what is proposed is reasonable. We have taken several very positive steps forward in providing a service for the disabled. It is unreasonable to add amendment (a), and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The Minister has given us a lot of tea and sympathy. All the amendments, including the latest proposal that she has just mentioned, were moved by the Opposition in Committee, and rejected by her. All of the amendments and recommendations about the London Regional Passengers Committee having some responsibility for the disabled were debated at length in Committee. They were all rejected, with the support of Conservative Back Benchers. Now, without a murmur, they are put forward as being a successful aspect of the Government's policy and we are criticised for not understanding what the Government have done.
It is difficult to understand, because no one knew anything about the latest proposal. In reality, none of the proposals costs the Government a penny. Those involved with the Dial-a-Ride scheme want money, organisation and support. If their needs are to be met, the Bill must first


recognise them. The Minister has gone part way towards recognition. It will now be recognised that due regard must be given to the transport needs of the disabled. Our amendment says that, given that there is a group of people to whom special attention should be given, it logically follows that the means should be provided with which to meet their special needs. In that way the obligation to meet all the needs of Londoners can be fulfilled.
In this debate, every hon. Member has shown great concern and has recognised the problem for local authorities if the GLC is abolished. Even if, as the Minister says, the local authorities are pushed to fulfil the obligation, they will tell her—particularly with the rate-capping proposals—that they need the money with which to do so. Local authorities have plenty of duties imposed on them, but insufficient resources to carry them out. The Minister will be asking them to carry out a new duty, and none of us sees much sense in following that route.
The disabled are the most important group in this regard, and I am very sorry that the Minister has not accepted our amendment. It should be realised that, however she feels, the hon. Lady cannot accept it because the Government are desperately rushing the Bill through. If any amendment is accepted tonight it will have to be dealt with in the other place, and that will delay the Bill. That factor is having a powerful effect in concentrating the Government's mind.
The Minister says that the local authorities should look to the needs of the disabled, but she should recognise that LRT can do that job quite adequately. Indeed, the National Bus Company and some of the community schemes offer organisational and financial support in some of the areas in which bus trial area schemes have taken place. Thus, it is not unique for a nationalised body to assist. In the circumstances, to ask local authorities to undertake that duty is quite unacceptable.
We cannot accept the Minister's rejection of our amendment. Many fine words have been spoken about her concern for the disabled, and it is true that she spends a considerable amount of time looking at the problems, but although her face may be the more acceptable face of Tory women, that will not be demonstrated in the Lobby tonight. Tonight she will be voting on as hard a line as any Conservative Member and will be denying the disabled people of London the opportunity of some basic mobility to meet their needs as a basic right. Without any hesitation, I ask the House to support our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 208.

Division No. 380]
[5.05 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Guy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Tony
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Anthony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence





Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ellis, Raymond
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, M.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Golding, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wainwright, R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon.


McWilliam, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Benyon, William
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Simon


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Browne, John
Dover, Den


Bruinvels, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Durant, Tony


Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh


Bulmer, Esmond
Emery, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald






Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
Norris, Steven


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Marcus
Paisley, Rev Ian


Franks, Cecil
Parris, Matthew


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Galley, Roy
Price, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gorst, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gow, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gregory, Conal
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Grylls, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hannam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Harvey, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Silvester, Fred


Hawksley, Warren
Sims, Roger


Hayhoe, Barney
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Speed, Keith


Henderson, Barry
Speller, Tony


Hickmet, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hind, Kenneth
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Holt, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hooson, Tom
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hordern, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Howard, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Sumberg, David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Tapsell, Peter


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Terlezki, Stefan


Jackson, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Thornton, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Thurnham, Peter


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Key, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Knowles, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Latham, Michael
Waddington, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Walden, George


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Lester, Jim
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Watson, John


Maclean, David John
Watts, John


Major, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Malins, Humfrey
Wheeler, John


Maples, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Mather, Carol
Wolfson, Mark


Maude, Hon Francis
Wood, Timothy


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Merchant, Piers
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Moynihan, Hon C.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 3

GENERAL POWERS.

Lords amendment: No. 2 in page 3, line 10, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 16 and insert—
(3) The duty of London Regional Transport and the Railways Board under section 2(3) of this Act to co-operate for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall extend to any public passenger transport services provided by any person other than a subsidiary of London Regional Transport under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of subsection (2) above; and any such agreement shall include such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate—
(a) for securing the proper discharge of their general duty under subsection (1) of that section; and
(b) for the purposes of the co-operation with the Railways Board required of them by subsection (3)(a) of that section.
(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above,

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Ridley: I shall ask the House to agree also to Lords Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 2 arises out of an undertaking that I gave on Report to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to consider whether a stronger link could be made between LRT's duties under clause 2 and its power under clause 3(2) to make arrangements for others who provide services on its behalf.
Amendment No. 2, although not necessary because the legislation makes the position clear, will ensure that link. On balance I thought it desirable to add the provision to the Bill. The amendment stresses the continuing nature of LRT's duties under clause 2, regardless of whether services are provided by LRT, its subsidiaries or by other operators under clause 3(2) agreements.
We agreed in another place, after representations, that there was merit in amending clause 34 to place LRT under a specific requirement to show in its annual report what action it had taken in co-ordinating its services with British Rail services. I take the matter seriously and I shall take a personal interest in what happens. I thought it right that LRT should be asked to report. Amendment No. 8 provides for that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister may consider this to be a belt and braces amendment. We note that it extends the duty of LRT significantly to the "other persons" to whom reference is made. The object of the Bill is to enable London Transport, in some cases at the Minister's direction, to bring in private enterprise and create subsidiaries of LRT to run certain services. As it is some time since we discussed those matters, the Minister may care to remind us of the position.
I presume that the subsidiaries will remain companies wholly owned, or be over 50 per cent. owned, by LRT, that the "other persons" will be persons in the sense of other companies, or perhaps individuals or contractors, and that we shall have, as it were, three levels of administration—four, taking the Minister into account—including 55 The Broadway in its new guise; the


subsidiaries, which, no doubt, will be partially book or accounting subsidiaries, with their head offices at that address, as they were prior to 1912; and the "other persons" referred to in the amendment.
New subsection (3) places a duty on LRT to co-operate with these other persons. We assume that these persons would not have been selected to run services if they did not comply with conditions laid down by LRT or the Minister. I want to make sure that the recently introduced, and now successful, travelcard receives proper consideration. Will the Minister confirm that co-operation—if it is not included in the conditions of service of the "other persons" mentioned in the amendment—will include cooperation about facilities such as the travelcard?
The travelcard in London enables people, according to what they have paid for in terms of zones, to use underground or bus services at any time as frequently as they wish. It is an extremely useful card. As one does not have to worry about paying additional fares, people use the services more. That is advantageous because the expense of running the services is not increased but the extent to which Londoners use the services is increased. I hope that co-operation with the "other persons" will include cooperating on matters of that kind.
The Minister has powers of direction over LRT. New subsection (3) says:
any such agreement shall include such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate".
I am sure that LRT will do its best, but the Minister will always be behind it. I was interested to note that in answer to a written question from me on Friday the Minister replied at column 271 that he intended to recruit a further 24 staff at the Department of Transport to look after LRT and that that would cost about £580,000 per year.
The Minister mentioned the railways. I hope that he will ensure that the co-operation that is to take place with other people will include steps already taken by the GLC which the London travelling public have found convenient and helpful. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will assure us that there will be full co-operation with whoever else may be involved in these services.
While I suspect that those services will mainly concern the buses, I hope that there will be no reduction in the ingenious means by which London Transport and the GLC have helped the travelling public at no extra expense.
The annual report will tell us the extent of the cooperation. It will also tell us, in a negative sort of way, what requests for co-operation have not been taken into account. I welcome the amendment because it will provide a somewhat greater safeguard than existed before, although it is clear to my hon. Friends and to me that the prospective disintegration of London transport will not be to the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. Maples: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the duty to co-ordinate services between British Rail and LRT shall extend not only to services which they or their subsidiaries provide, but to services which LRT might contract out under clause 3(2).
The amendment appears to go somewhat further than that, and, in addition, imposes a duty on the contractor to discuss co-ordination, and I want to be sure that that is not the case. I want the co-ordinating to be done between LRT and the railways board and not between a person who becomes a contractor under clause 3(2) and the board.

Mr. Peter Snape: Why not?

Mr. Maples: I should have thought that the answer was clear. Many of us regard clause 3(2) as containing one of the most important provisions in the Bill, for it gives great scope for LRT to provide better, more efficient and cheaper services. Anything which imposed an open-ended duty on a contractor under that subsection would make such agreements unattractive to potential subcontractors. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that it does not also extend to the actions of the contractor.

Mr. Simon Hughes: guess that what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) was a plea for privatisation to be allowed to go on as little hampered as possible.
I welcome, in particular, amendment No. 8 because, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we on the Opposition Benches are in no doubt that as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent and the Secretary of State announces the date on which it is to be enacted—which is likely to be the day after it receives the Royal Assent—there will be massive fares increases, the first of which will be announced within a matter of days—increases which were to have been announced recently had the Secretary of State not been cautioned not to make an announcement before the Bill had completed its passage through the House.
The hon. Member for Newham, South was right to say that the annual report will at least let us see the state of play. It will show us whether integrated London transport is happening—whether it is integrated between public and private provision, or whether it is becoming less integrated and is increasingly disintegrating as a public service. The duty to present an annual report is a good. step forward, because if the Secretary of State persists along the road down which he appears to be determined to take us we shall at least see, sooner rather than later, whether the chickens are coming home to roost.

Mr. Prescott: We are continuing the Committee discussion about whether this is co-operation rather than integration, and perhaps the Secretary of State is realising that we should be thinking more about co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right to say that the Bill will lead more to disintegration than to co-operation. At least we welcome the announcement in a news release today that the Secretary of State has turned down the AMOS appeal. The alternative would have been particularly disintegrating for London's transport requirements.
We have not been prepared statutorily to impose duties, and that leads us back to the "due regard" aspects of the discussion in Committee. Our fear is that people will have licence to do exactly what they wish. The amendment tightens the provision a little, and perhaps the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have adduced are beginning to sink in and the right hon. Gentleman is realising that the scheme as originally planned would not have turned out as well as he had thought.
In the argument on whether bus services can be properly integrated, I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the fact that in these agreements to be drawn up between LRT and some transport company, such as a bus company, it may be that the bus passes and travelcards, perhaps even old-age pensioner passes, will not apply on every service that is maintained. There is an example of


this in the local authority bus service maintained by Hillingdon council, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who again has missed the bus, or has perhaps just missed the debate, which affects his constituency.
5.30 pm
In Hillingdon, an arrangement has been arrived at between the local authority and London Transport, and I have before me the revised timetable of the 128 bus service, which makes it clear that bus passes and travelcards are not acceptable. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has joined us, as I am referring to a bus service in his constituency. Perhaps he has been delayed because it was late. I point out for his benefit that on that service, bus passes and travelcards, which are an important factor in integration, do not apply. As I understand it, the London Transport Passengers' Committee cannot get information on this service, as the local authority refuses to provide it. If that is happening in the system that we have now, given that many more of these individually negotiated contracts are to take place, it will not be surprising if this happens at the expense of the integrated service that has prevailed in London under London Transport.
I welcome the fact that there will be greater coordination between the rail and bus services, although the amendment merely expresses the desire to see further coordination. We shall now have the opportunity to assess what is happening if the steps that have been taken in previous years are recorded regularly in the annual reports. We hope that sufficient time will be given in the House to debate success or failure of those moves.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked about the staff in my Department. Yes, 24 staff will be required to administer LRT, but many of them are already doing it, and others will be diverted from other activities, from which they will be released, so it does not mean that there will be a net increase of that size. The main subsidiaries of the bus and the underground are almost certain, for as far ahead as one can see, to remain 100 per cent. owned by LRT.
The main point of the debate, which has been raised by most hon. Members who have spoken, concerns the position of routes that are contracted out under clause 3(2) to private operators. LRT may find that it can get tenders for running certain routes cheaper than it is able to run them itself, in which case I am sure that the House would agree that LRT should be encouraged to accept such tenders. The conditions that it may care to place on the invitation to bid will include the acceptance of travelcards and bus passes and any arrangements that might be necessary for liaison with British Rail.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) I point out that it might be that the timetable of one of these services should fit with the timetable of trains departing from a BR station, in which case, no doubt, LRT will make it clear in the invitation to bid that that is one of the conditions of the tender. The same will apply to travelcards, bus passes and so on, I would point out to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The liaison with British Rail, however, will be done by LRT. LRT, having made the best liaison arrangements possible on a whole range of matters in which LRT and BR overlap, will put into its specification any requirements to make sure that that happens.

Mr. Prescott: What effect will what the right hon. Gentleman has said have on the Hillingdon service, to which I referred? Does that mean that that service, if agreed with LRT, will have to carry the condition of recognising the travelcard and those provisions laid down by LRT?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know about the service to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because I have only just heard about it, but it is possible that there can be licensed private operators in competition with LRT, in which case the conditions under which they operate will be laid down by the traffic commissioners. Secondly, it is possible that LRT will invite private operators to run some of its routes under clause 3(2), in which case it has the power to impose the conditions that bus passes and travelcards be accepted. It would be crazy if it did not impose those conditions, because such cards and passes are the main form of fare-paying currencies for a large number of passengers. To exclude those passengers, or ask them to pay cash as well as possessing a travelcard, would not be in the best interests of anybody. I should be surprised if, in any of these services, LRT did not impose that condition.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The problem is that the bus service to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred is run and paid for by the local authority. If it has to fund the free bus passes which are then used on the bus service, one wonders where the money would actually come from. However, to tie up with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the bus service is not in competition with an LT bus service, but is run over routes on which LT does not run.

Mr. Ridley: That is an example of a service that is not run by LT, and of a local authority that has made its own arrangements. It is a case of local discretion, and local authorities are free to make any arrangements that they wish, and decide on the conditions under which they should be operating. There is no doubt about that, and it is the same in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I am sure that he would find plenty of similar bus routes.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. It is a bad Liberal habit to assume that what is in newspapers is true. What he can believe, if he would like to take it from me, is that last week the board of LT voted to accept a contract for £100,000 for political advertising for the GLC for the three months of September, October and November. That means that the buses will continue to be plastered with "Keep GLC Working for London" long after LT will have ceased to exist. Rates can be saved by not spending money on such political advertising.
I have many more ways to save rates. The first thing that the House will hear about in our plans for LRT will be news of the great reduction in the cost of running it that it is possible to make without cutting out any large numbers of routes or closing down stations. All such


claims from the Opposition are rubbish. Also, I repeat that there will be no increase in fares significantly above the rate of inflation. I have said that so often, that perhaps I might be believed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State were to say now that there will be no increase in fares this year, we would accept that as a categoric assurance. We would be grateful for a specific undertaking of that sort. In the absence of a specific undertaking we have sometimes to turn to the newspapers.

Mr. Ridley: I should prefer to announce my plans for the future of LRT when the House has given its assent to the Bill and when it has received Royal Assent. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the calendar year and not the financial year, I can tell him that I do not believe that there will be any increase in fares during the calendar year. I hope that that is of some comfort to him.
The hon. Gentleman might care to ponder on what would be reasonable. If there is an increase in fares in due course equivalent to the inflation that has taken place since the Labour party took over at county hall it would have to be a 22 per cent. increase. That would be rather a heavy increase and I would not like that. If there is an increase that is commensurate with the inflation that has taken place since fares were last increased, which was May 1983, there would have to be a 7 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman can take his pick of what he thinks would be reasonable between those two percentages.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

PLANNING OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—
( ) Any statement prepared under this section shall deal with the financial prospects of London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives determined for them by the Secretary of State under section 16 of this Act which, at the time when the statement is prepared, apply in relation to that period or any part of it.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 4, in Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
and shall have regard to any considerations to which the Secretary of State may from time to time draw their attention (including, in particular, considerations of national or regional transport policy) and to the development plan for any district which appears to London Regional Transport to be affected by any policies, proposals or plans which they propose to set out in the statement.
No. 5, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
and the reference in that subsection to the development plan for any district shall be construed in accordance with section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Mr. Ridley: We accepted in Committee in another place that the strategy documents under clause 7 which LRT will be required to publish should contain some financial information. They would be of limited use if they did not do so. It seemed sensible to make the position clear in the Bill, and that is the purpose of Lords amendment No. 3.
Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 meet an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I was unable to deliver on Report because of some legal difficulties, which have now been overcome. The effect is that LRT will have to have regard to any consideration which the Secretary of State—not necessarily me—may draw to its attention in preparing its strategy statement. The considerations may include issues which come within national or regional transport policy and any development plans for any area which appear to be affected by the matters dealt with in the statement. Lords amendment No. 4 draws on the requirements in the 1969 Act which currently apply to the GLC in preparing transport plans.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Liberals have always believed that in planning transport it is necessary to take into account whatever other plans exist for the time being. I know that there are proposals in the pipeline to change the nature of the planning system in London, but for the time being there is a development plan and other policy statements. We welcome the amendment as another sign of better integration, a plea which the right hon. Gentleman must by now be dreaming about, having heard the phrase so often.

Mr. Spearing: Whatever our views about the Bill, it must be recognised that most of the amendments are improvements. I commend the Secretary of State and his colleagues for accepting the amendment from another place. The few brief remarks which I intend to make may help them to carry out a task which they may not realise is coming to them. The amendments refer to a "regional transport policy" and transport policy is extremely important for London. At present it is the responsibility of the Greater London council, especially the strategic plan for London.
If the GLC disappears—I hope that it will not—and the strategic responsibility goes with it, who will be responsible other than Her Majesty's Government for a regional transport policy for London? Presumably the responsibility will devolve upon the 24 or the 24-plus and the policy will be determined within Marsham street. As London will not have an elected body dealing with strategic planning, with which transport is closely associated, the Secretary of State will find himself handling policy matters which until now have not been his responsibility. He will become accountable to hon. Members for those matters.
One example is the docklands light railway. Magically, it has the assent and support of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the London borough of Newham, the GLC and the Secretary of State for Transport. It is under the aegis of GLC planning and the subject of London Transport Bills that are considered in this place. It is a good example of agreed planning which is going ahead. It has not been a major responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
The Secretary of State will have to consider the construction of new railway lines in London. We read recently of the resuscitation of the Snow hill tunnel. The tunnel has been with us for a long time and it should have been reconnected, as should the Willesden-Clapham junction passenger service. These matters will come


within the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. Even more important than that, he will find that he will be approached on the economy of regional centres, especially on retail trade and employment. Until now it has been the responsibility of the GLC to determine what places should be encouraged and supported in the furtherance of important functions such as trade and employment. The right hon. Gentleman will be lobbied by many interests. I am not saying that he is not already, but I suspect that the lobbying will become more intense.
It has been said that the travelcard should be extended to embrace British Rail. The GLC would implement that policy if the Secretary of State allowed it to do so. An all-London travelcard would be a tremendous boon and it would not be against British Rail's financial interests. Everyone knows that British Rail runs surburban services, empty or full. For a good part of each day there is capacity for additional passengers without incurring an extra outlay. If London had the integrated services that a proper regional transport policy would provide, we should have a system approaching those that are to be found, so I am told, in New York and Paris.
Relatively cheap public transport provides accessibility to services within the central areas of a city, including the central business community. It would provide accessibility to the west end, Westminster, the City and the Festival hall. It would offer accessibility to all the functions that were available in pre-1918 London, as it were. Such travel would be easy, cheap and reasonably efficient. That is what everybody in London wants to see, irrespective of party.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the forward-looking formulation of a London Regional Transport policy, which is the duty placed upon LRT and himself, should be of that sort. The facilities exist and they are publicly owned. The extension of the travelcard to London's railways would be a boon to everybody, irrespective of party and individual attitudes to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 27

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 24, line 6, at end insert—
(2A) Without prejudice to section 46 of this Act and subject to subsection (2B) below, a transfer scheme may provide that any functions of the transferor under any statutory provision shall be transferred with the property, rights and liabilities affected by the scheme, if and so far as that statutory provision—
(a) relates to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme; or
(b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works.
(2B) Subsection (2A) above does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport, or of London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs, under any provision of this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
(2C) A transfer scheme may define any functions of the transferor to be transferred by the scheme in accordance with subsection (2A) above—
(a) by specifying the statutory provisions in question;

(b) by referring to all the statutory provisions (except those mentioned in subsection (2B) above) which relate to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme or authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works; or
(c) by referring to all the statutory provisions within paragraph (b) above, but specifying certain excepted provisons."

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment which applies to schemes under which property is transferred from LRT to one of its subsidiaries or from one subsidiary to another. This is really a drafting point. I shall be delighted to explain the amendment if the House wishes me to do so, but I can assure the House that there are no deep and unrevealed motives behind it.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Secretary of State tell us which functions are to be carried across in that way? Can he differentiate between those functions and statutory provisions?

Mr. Ridley: If LRT sets up a subsidiary to run the underground it will have to transfer the property associated with the underground to that subsidiary, and clearly the function of running the tube trains will have to be transferred as well. There may be other functions which will become the obligation of the subsidiary once it has been set up. The amendment is designed to ensure that both the property and the duties are transferred.

Mr. Spearing: Although the amendment is technical, the Secretary of State, with his usual courtesy, has invited inquiries. I assume that the amendment will not apply to the other persons about whom we have been talking, but only to subsidiaries as defined by the legislation. A few moments ago the Secretary of State presented to the House the possibility of someone putting in a bid to run bus services more cheaply than London Transport runs them at the moment. One would assume that such a bid would not be associated with any property owned by London Transport at the moment, and that the bidder would use his own premises and equipment rather than transferred property. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that what is in question is the technical book transfer of the big subsidiaries, and that the amendment does not apply in any way to private people making bids?
Secondly, the schemes are to be presented to the Secretary of State. Will such schemes be published before the Secretary of State assents to them? If they are not published before he assents to them, will notice of them be given in the annual report? As this is a statutory provision, one might suppose that such transfers should be open and transparent, that notice should be given of the application to the Secretary of State and that his decision should at least appear in the annual report.

Mr. Ridley: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes. Any schemes set up to create subsidiaries will be formal and public. They will require my consent, which will be made public and I am sure will be reproduced in the annual report.
On the first point, it is unlikely that the amendment will refer in any way to agreements under clause 3(2). The amendment would apply not only to the duties that I have


mentioned to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but to duties that arise under local Acts. Under such an Act, for instance, a duty to fence the railway might be attached to the underground service which is to be transferred. That duty would be transferred to the subsidiary, as well as the property.
On reflection, is it most likely that nearly all the duties that will be transferred under the amendment will arise under local Acts. No duty will arise under a local Act in relation to a private bus contractor, although it is possible that some property could be transferred to a private bus operator, such as the bus stops and shelters. It would be sensible for the person running the bus route to maintain the shelters, but in that case what would be involved would be a property, not a duty.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30

INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY WITH RESPECT TO PLANS AS TO SERVICES, AND FARES

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 25, line 27, after "Act" insert
, and the general structure of routes of those services

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment will ensure that local authorities and the passengers committee will be informed annually of LRT's plans as to the general structure of routes on services provided by LRT, by any of its subsidiaries or by anybody who contracts to operate a service under clause 3(2).
As we discussed in Committee, LRT is required under clause 30 to provide information on its plans about the general level and structure of fares and the general level of services. This is an additional requirement that it should consult about the general structure of routes as well. I hope that the House will agree that the addition is desirable.

Mr. Prescott: Clearly the House will agree on that point. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we spent some time discussing the structure and routes. The amendment is a further improvement, in that information about the structure of routes will now be given by LRT to the local authorities involved. Clearly, LRT and any subsidiary which has a negotiated agreement under clause 3 to provide a service will have an obligation to give information about the structure of routes. What will be required of bus operators who agree with the traffic commissioners to provide a service in London? Those operators may not necessarily need the agreement of LRT before they provide a service in the area; they can seek the agreement of the traffic commissioners.
If, for instance, Associated Minibus Operators is allowed to develop such a service, will it be obliged to give this information to the local authority if its agreement is not with LRT but with the traffic commissioners?

Mr. Ridley: No. It will not be required to give the information. However, in granting a licence, the traffic commissioners might well impose a series of conditions, which might include conditions that the traffic commissioners had seen fit to base on evidence given to them by LRT. In the event of an application for a competitive service, I have no doubt that the traffic

commissioners would listen to objections, that there would be objections from LRT, and that the traffic commissioners could then append conditions to the grant of a licence, which might well be very limiting, just as having to fulfil the requirements on services operated by LRT would be limiting.

Mr. Prescott: The private services which may enter the market may be openly encouraged by LRT itself. Is this not an unfair situation? Should not the traffic commissioners be told that those applying for licences should have to supply information to the local authorities about structures of services? Why should LRT be obliged to do so while those providing similar services are not?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is a passionate believer in a co-ordinated, integrated, state-owned and monolithic transport service for London, in which everything is planned and everyone concerned is consulted. Roughly speaking, that is what he is going to get, but there is also the possibility of the private sector operating on a very different basis—providing the services that the customers want, and providing them cheaply and competitively. Very often, the customers are the only people who are not consulted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34

ANNUAL REPORT

Lords amendment made: No. 8, in page 28, line 39, at end insert—
( )include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the purpose of co-ordinating the public passenger transport services provided by, or by any subsidiary of, the Railways Board and those provided by London Regional Transport, any subsidiary of London Regional Transport, or any other person under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act;"—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 36

PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT AS TO RAILWAY SERVICES.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 30, line 9, at end insert
the accounting year of London Regional Transport current at the expiry of

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: 'With this it will convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 13 and 31 and 32.

Mr. Ridley: These are all minor drafting amendments, and they are all addressed to the same point. If part II were activated, after eight years it would have to be renewed, or it would lapse. It would not be desirable for that to happen half way or three quarters of the way through a financial year. The amendment simply provides that any such lapse or extension will take effect at the end of the accounting year in question.
There are so many "ifs" in my presentation of the amendment, that the Opposition may say that it is so hypothetical that it is unnecessary, but it does tidy up the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 43

EXEMPTION OF LONDON BUS SERVICES UNDER CONTROL OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT FROM REQUIREMENT OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCE.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 39, line 9, after "affected" insert ", with the Passengers' Committee"

6 pm

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Mrs. Chalker: The house will recall that in Committee we accepted the principle of including the passengers committee among the bodies to be consulted under clause 43. When our proceedings were concluded formally at a late stage in the debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) could not be in Committee and the amendment was not moved. Amendment No. 14 deals with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be glad to support it.
Amendment No. 15 is essentially a correction, the need for which came to light in the preparation of amendment No. 16. It will ensure that local authorities will be consulted under clause 43 about new bus services or variations of bus services even where only part of the particular bus route in question involves their areas.
Amendment No. 16 meets an undertaking given to Lord Carmichael in another place. He drew attention to the fact that London Transport has been obliged since 1971, under a direction from the Greater London council, to consult local authorities over major variations and withdrawals of public passenger transport services. The Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and for variations of bus services, but we accepted that it did not make parallel provision for consultation over the withdrawal of bus services. We therefore brought forward this amendment to extend consultation under clause 43 to withdrawals. LRT will be required to consult before any decisions are taken on withdrawals of bus services, whether they are operated by LRT, by its subsidiaries or by other operators under clause 3(2) agreements. The amendment represents a further measure to involve local authorities and the passengers committee in proposals that will affect local interests and the travelling public.
I think that that is all I need to say about the amendments. They are all drafted in the spirit that was accepted in Committee. I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. Spearing: Once again we must be grateful to another place, and especially to Lord Carmichael.
I wish to help the Minister and those who assist her in these complex matters. They may take on a load of trouble if certain policies are pursued. We accept that it is helpful, right and proper for local authorities, the Common Council and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to be consulted about the withdrawal of any bus services. We all know that populations change, and with that the

demand for bus services. London Transport withdraws services in one place and adds to services in another. That has been done on the basis of what I call the 1933 settlement. LT was given a monopoly in exchange for providing a public service. The Bill will change that.
Although LRT will have duties and obligations—and I shall not go over the arguments again—the monopoly position and the financial structure will not be the same. With the pressure from the Government to do well financially, LRT may feel unable to put the charges on the boroughs, although it will have the right to impose a precept on the boroughs to run the London services. There may be a temptation for LRT to say, "We want to save money by reducing bus services that are not paying, or even to take away a route which we think does not pay." LRT may even withdraw peak-hour services or Sunday services from certain areas.
Until now, any changes have been dealt with by the GLC-LT network. The appropriate, publicly elected members of County Hall have argued with their colleagues and then crossed the river to 55 Broadway to say whether or not a bus route should be changed. Fortunately, it has not been a matter for the House, and, thank heavens, it has not been the concern of Marsham street. Yet I suspect that when the Bill becomes an Act it will become the concern of Marsham street.
Consultation may be helpful. It may avoid the withdrawal of routes or it may make any adjustment to the optimum, but there may be arguments about money, in the same way as we had arguments about the withdrawal of railway services, how much was being lost, how much being saved and how to calculate that. Will we, through the withdrawal of a bus route, save on the administration of a garage or 55 Broadway? All those points are relevant.
I warn the Minister that although consultation may be helpful, we hope that LRT or any of its subsidiaries will not get up to the sort of financial tricks that we have had from British Rail asking to close rail services. We hope that there will be no arguments about accounts. Of course, if an overwhelming case is made for a change, that will be a different matter.
I hope that the clause will avoid the sort of friction which, alas, will come within the ambit of Members of Parliament. We do not want that—the decision-making should be retained within the existing GLC-LT network.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, the Liberal party and, I hope, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of greater consultation with the body that will take over the role of representing the passenger faced with the new LRT authority. I must correct the Minister, to my detriment. It is not that I was not present when the original amendment was not moved in Committee, but rather that it was about the 60th in a bank of 90 amendments, which were all moved at such speed that I did not realise that we had passed my amendment until it was half a second too late.
I am grateful for the fact that the amendment has now come forward from another place. It means that when it is proposed either to take away a route or to add to it the new passengers committee will be involved. Of course, as we have always made clear, that is not the same as passengers being represented on the board of LRT. Passengers are excluded from the decision-making body. It will be our perpetual regret, until matters change, that the representatives of transport users can only be consulted


and cannot vote or argue behind closed doors with those appointed by the Secretary of State as the management body of LRT.
Until such time as we can persuade the Government that there should be more accountability in the running of London transport, we hope that the consultation on proposed changes to routes will result in a real listening to views. I read in the weekend papers that the Government are trying to change their image to the listening Government. I remember that a bank tried the same tack and that that was met with some amusement from not only its clients but many others.
I hope that if the Government are serious in saying that they will begin to change course by listening to people in London—as the Government well know, the majority of Londoners are opposed to the Government's proposals to take over LRT—they will listen to the consumer watchdogs acting on behalf of the users of the service and do what they recommend. We may then be in for a slightly better deal than the one that we expect will come our way.

Mr. Chris Smith: I shall comment especially on amendment No. 16 which specifies the consultation procedures involved in the withdrawal of a bus service. Consultation, especially with passengers and borough councils, is much better than no consultation. Consultation is, however, very much second best. My favoured scheme is for the Government to abandon the Bill and leave the running of and decisions by London Transport in the hands of elected people representing Londoners. That is the best form of consultation and accountability.
I shall cite one example from my constituency. The No. 172 bus used to run from the Angel to Archway, providing a much valued and appreciated service to the people using it. It was not the most efficient service in the world. There were many complaints on that score, but none about its existence and the service that it provided. About a year and a half ago, London Transport terminated that service at Kings Cross. The gap between Kings Cross and Archway was left without any bus service for about a year and a half. Strong local protests were made. I took up the case and even tried to persuade the Ministers in the Department of the Environment to allow some partnership money to be spent on subsidising a bus service to cover that gap, but was unsuccessful.
Thanks to the efforts and concern of the GLC, responding to the wishes of its electors, a replacement bus service, No. 153, started only two weeks ago. It is providing a much appreciated service to the people of the area. That is a clear example of the GLC—an elected body—responding to the wishes of its electors and the people who use a transport service over which they have some control.
Although we welcome the Government's acceptance of the provisions inserted by the other place for improved consultation about the withdrawal of bus services, that procedure is very much second best. It is no real substitute for proper accountability and consultation via the ballot box by electors through the GLC.

Mr. Prescott: Inevitably, comparisons were made during this debate with what was said in Committee. Discussions in Committee often began with a consideration of whether the GLC was the legitimate body to be consulted—whether, since its death was nigh, reference

to it should be included in the Bill. Increasingly, the amendments refer to the GLC being consulted, and that is, perhaps, a sign—we have noted this from rumours and press cuttings—that the GLC will be given an extended life. The idea of consulting the GLC is embodied in various amendments, although little time was given to that matter at the beginning of the Committee debates. I believe that all hon. Members welcome the fact that there will be consultation with the local authorities involved, including the London Regional Passengers Committee, about route changes and withdrawal of bus services.
A curious point arises. We have just passed an amendment relating to LRT taking control over the London regional rail passenger network within eight years. That is a complicated formula, but the result is that LRT will take over the running of some railway lines.
6.15 pm
A distinction has been drawn between how we deal with closures and withdrawals, and the amendments address themselves to that point. If a railway line is closed, many procedures under the recommendations of the Transport Users Consultative Committee must be followed. The position is not the same with the closure of bus routes. I believe that we all welcome the fact that it is possible for people to express their views on the withdrawal of a bus service.
We should bear in mind the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport of a plan for railways whereby buses will take over from trains. He has suggested that when an appeal is made against the withdrawal of a railway service or an additional bus service taking over a rail service the procedure applying to the railways will be used. That is his intention, whether the service is run by bus or rail. If LRT controls a number of railway lines, what type of procedure will apply—the one applying to the buses or the one applying to the trains? Why should we not put them into the same system?
The Secretary of State said that he had adopted the recommendations of the Transport Committee, which recommended that where a bus service replaced a railway service it should remain in operation for 10 years. That is not the statement given by the Secretary of State hi a parliamentary answer to an hon. Member. If the Secretary of State reads the report of the Transport Committee, he will find that he has adopted its suggestions not its recommendations. The Transport Committee had some encouraging words for the replacement of train services by buses, but it recommended that, if a bus service took the place of a rail service, that form of operation should not be removed for 10 years. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take advice on what was spelt out. I could give him his reply to study.
Since the amendments deal with the distinction between closure and withdrawal of bus and rail services, I hope that I can tempt the Minister of State to say how any new thinking in the Department will apply to that aspect.
I have referred to the separate agreement reached in the provision of transport in Hillingdon. When debating the structure of routes, the Secretary of State confirmed that the obligations imposed on the public sector would be much greater than those imposed on the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman disappeared in a flight of rhetoric without answering my point. Why should there be differing requirements for information on routes to allow people to judge between the public and private sectors,


simply because the public sector is controlled by the Secretary of State and the private sector has to secure the agreement of the traffic commissioners? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to do so, will the Minister of State justify the reasons why, once again, the public sector, over which the Secretary of State will have direct responsibility because of the LRT measures, is obliged to give information about route structures and closures to local authorities when private operators are not?

Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House. I understand what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was saying at the beginning of his remarks, but I believe that the consultation will be beneficial. I believe that that is the intention of the amendments. I hope that he is wrong when he talks about a load of trouble. Good consultation often avoids a load of trouble. Lack of consultation sometimes leads to it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for putting me right, but I know that it was late at night and a great deal was going on rather quickly. At least we have amendment No. 14 coming back from another place to deal with that point.
The story that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) told us about the 172 bus may be perfectly correct—I am not seeking to dispute it in any way—but it is a little wearying to hear everything done in the name of London praised when it is done by the GLC although no account is taken of the ratepayers' money. I caution him that there is account at the end of the day of what the GLC costs the London ratepayer and taxpayer.
I shall deal with the slightly convoluted description that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave of rail closures. I believe that I am right to say that if the rail services are being run by LRT, the closures will follow the same procedures as for LRT rail. There is no reason why they should be operated differently and, therefore, consulted upon differently.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the end of last week, I believe, that the rail procedure for closures would apply to buses should British Rail come forward with a subsequent plan no longer to run that bus substitute for a British Rail service. My right hon. Friend was simply agreeing British Rail's detailed plan on that occasion and the rail closure procedure will apply to those buses substituted for railways.
Those were the two main questions that I heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East ask.

Mr. Prescott: What about LRT?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said clearly when I spoke to amendment No. 16, the Bill already sets out procedures for rail closures and other variations in bus services. Without amendment No. 16, the Bill did not set out any procedure for withdrawal of bus services. We have accepted the amendment put forward by the noble Lord Carmichael, with some assistance in drafting, which puts that on an even footing.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me a further question about Hillingdon. LRT will continue to run bus services that are subsidised by the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Those private routes which are not part of a clause 3(2) agreement but which run separately under a

road service licence will not be dependent upon the ratepayer or taxpayer. In that sense, they are different, and I accept that they should be treated differently.

Mr. Prescott: The point that I was making about private services was that they will be able to provide a range of bus services within the LRT region in competition with LRT buses or subsidiaries if the traffic commissioner has agreed that that should take place. In those circumstances, with "Jones the Bus" running down Oxford street in competition with LRT buses, LRT is required to give information about the structure of the routes, their closures and withdrawals to local authorities, but "Jones the Bus" is not. Why not?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will remember from Committee that "Jones the Bus" or, dare I say it, "Evans the Bus" would be operating entirely on their own account. They would not be operating with a subsidy from the taxpayer or the ratepayer. They will be required, as I remember we debated in Committee, to furnish information about bus stops and all manner of ther things. I should have thought it would be completely unreasonable that the traffic commissioners would not have information about variations in services, because they will immediately mean a variation in those matters that the traffic commissioners have to consider. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's point has substance.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clause 44

APPLICATION OF PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 IN RELATION TO SERVICES IN GREATER LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 40, line 14, leave out "they apply" and insert "well as".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18, 33 and 34 in clause 66, page 62, line 31, at end insert—
() Section (Excursions and tours with stopping places in Greater London) of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
and amendment (a) thereto, in line 3, leave out 'at the end of the period of two months beginning with' and insert 'on'.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, amendment (A)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will move it when we come to it. It is an amendment to amendment No. 34, which is on page 14.

Mr. Snape: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I shall merely comment on the amendment to Lords amendment No. 34 and move my amendment in due course.
The Opposition welcome Lords amendment No. 34, which will at least give some power to control the use of stopping places by excursions and tour operators. Those hon. Members who served on Committee will be aware that I detained, if not entertained, the Committee for a considerable time by speaking about the difficulties that some private operators have caused.
The House will be relieved, as I have no doubt you will be, Mr. Speaker, to hear that I do not intend once again


to relate the saga of how difficult it is for me to get away from my office on the Norman Shaw embankment, due to the problems caused by a number of private operators who persistently ignore parking regulations and leave their buses and coaches there for long periods despite the "No waiting" signs. I understand that—judging from the revelations from both sides in Committee—hon. Members have at various times, correctly, been issued with parking tickets for leaving their vehicles in that spot.
Although we were somewhat churlishly treated at the end of that debate in Committee, because neither the Minister of State nor the Secretary of State seemed inclined to take our view seriously, it is with some pleasure that we note that in another place, presumably, similar arguments were advanced. Ministers there may be more receptive to arguments similar to those advanced in Committee. We feel, however, that the two-month delay in implementing the clause is not just unnecessary. It may allow operators to try to evade the new regulations by applying for a licence before this part comes into effect. Subsection (4) of the clause allows operators to apply for a licence before the end of the two-month period. As I understand it, that is without having recourse to the traffic commissioners. Existing operators, who were the main bones of contention in my speech in Committee, are exempted for five years after the Bill comes into force. If the two-month delay to which the amendment refers is accepted, it may enable operators to book extra starting points, if I can put it that way, either for immediate use or for use some time next year.
6.30 pm
I understand that at present no fewer than four local London tours are proposed by private operators. That could, and I submit should, give rise to objections about the starting and stopping points that are proposed along the routes of the tours. It has been the practice, since private tour operators first proliferated, for them to use the stopping places normally provided by the London Transport services. Private operators have always had the benefit of stopping facilities provided free by the ratepayers, a group of people for whom the Minister of State in particular professes to have great sympathy when she is talking about other public expenditure. Yet she seems anxious to ignore them in this respect.
The Opposition believe that if private operators wish to run tours they should take the financial responsibility for providing proper facilities. We take exception to private operators using bus stops provided by London Transport when running stage carriage services, even in competition with London Transport. The position is much worse when it comes to tours of London, which are extremely popular. It is a custom and practice among those running the tours to make sure that, as far as possible, there is always a vehicle available so that those who wish to take a tour can book a ticket and wait until the tour departs. Often that happens a long time before the tour is due to leave, especially given the amount and proliferation of competition for tours within London.
A tour may leave at, say, 11 o'clock in the morning and the next one at 11.30 am. The operator's drivers are instructed, and I am informed that they obey the instructions, that when the tour timed to leave at 11 am departs from its starting point—which is provided by London Transport at ratepayers' expense—the bus

scheduled to depart at 11.30 arrives. In that way, a vehicle is always at the starting point for those who wish to book for the following tour.
I hope that the amendment that has been accepted in another place will enable the Department and, if necessary, the traffic commissioners and the Metropolitan police among others to tackle the problem. While we are debating this, may I ask the Minister of State whether there is any intention to start a tour outside the gates of the Palace of Westminster? I understand that an application was made recently to start such a tour from Parliament square. I make no plea for exceptions for hon. Members, but it might be interesting for us to know the Government's general reaction to such an application. Indeed, we should like to know whether the applicant will be required to provide his own facilities in Parliament square for parking his vehicles.
The purpose of the amendment is to strike out the two-month provision. We appreciate that it was inserted in another place so that adequate consultation, or at least some consultations could take place between LRT and tour operators. It is well known that the Bill has been very contentious, and it has probably been thoroughly scrutinised by those who wish to operate tours. It seems to us that to leave the two-month period in the Bill, as the other place has seen fit to do, would merely enable tour operators to evade their responsibilities in future while those in another place had correctly insisted that tour operators should undertake such responsibilities.
Regrettably, the Government—especially the Minister of State—declined to see the sense of such a procedure in Committee. I am not a vindictive type. I would not say to the Minister, "I told you so." But Ministers in the other place have at least shown some sense in trying to solve the problem. I hope that we shall persuade the Minister of State to go all the way, and drop what seems to us an unnecessary two-month delay.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal with the new clause and comment upon the other amendments, as well as with the hon. Gentleman's wish to amend the new clause further. We have made available to hon. Members the notes on the new clause in the usual way. I hope that they have been helpful.
Lords amendment No. 18 empowers the Metropolitan traffic commissioners to control the use of stopping places in Greater London for vehicles being used for excursion and tour services. They are one of three types of bus service defined for licensing purposes in section 35 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
At present, the traffic commissioners have very limited powers under that Act to refuse to issue a road service licence to an excursion or tour operator. The hon. Gentleman knows that I listened carefully to his long speeches in Committee on the issue. I am sorry that we have not seen him at the Dispatch Box for a while. We welcome him back. I notice that he has lost none of his panache in seeking to persuade me to his point of view.
I am eminently persuadable of something that is sensible and when it has been examined and properly worked out. As I said in Committee, we have noted the growing number of sightseeing tours that pick up and set down passengers in London. We know about the traffic management problems in a few central London locations.
Traffic is already heavy in those place and there is limited scope to provide bus standing facilities. That is


why, after thorough examination and proper drafting of the new clause, we have concluded that the licensing system should be extended to take traffic management problems into account when issuing road service licences to operators of excursions and tours. That is in the new clause.
Where a service applicant proposes that the service should pick up or set down passengers in Greater London, the Metropolitan traffic commissioners will judge whether the application is against the interests of the public. This test is not imposed on applications under the existing section 35. In order to judge whether the application under the new clause is against the interests of the public, the traffic commissioners must consider whether the proposed stopping places for the service are suitable; a stopping place is not to be regarded as suitable if they are satisfied that its use for the purpose would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.
I shall take up the invitation of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to comment on an application, of which I have not heard, for a picking up and setting down point in Parliament square. I am sure that, in the spirit of the new clause, those considering such a road service licence would not, given the current amount of traffic in Parliament square, consider it to be either a safe or convenient place. It may be convenient for those wishing to hop on or off the bus, but for everyone else who uses Parliament square there would be great inconveniences. I have no doubt that a more convenient picking up or setting down point could be found to give a similar service.
The new clause gives local authorities and the police for the areas to be covered the right to make objections or representations. It gives the traffic commissioners power, in granting a licence, to attach such conditions as they think fit, having regard to the objections or representations, in order to ensure that passengers are picked up or set down only at specified points or are not picked up or set down between specified points. It also gives traffic commissioners power to alter, remove or attach additional conditions.
The amendment to clause 44 simply modifies the declaratory statement in subsection (1), to take account of the fact that the new clause introduces another difference between Greater London and the rest of the country. The amendments to clause 66 provide for the new clause to come into effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is the point with which the hon. Gentleman's amendment is concerned. He wishes to delete that two-month gap, as he fears that there might be pre-emptive applications under the existing power. It is possible that tour operators will apply under the existing powers to preempt the stricter powers. That always happens when the House passes legislation. But the proposals are already well known from the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. The opportunity for pre-emptive applications has always existed. The inclusion of the new controls in the Bill means that they are now likely to come into operation sooner than would otherwise have been the case. I have no reason to believe that there will be a pre-emptive rush. In any case, it would be quite unreasonable at this late stage to decide that an important new clause was to come into operation overnight and without more than a few weeks warning.
The new clause, which was put into the Bill in another place, is to be welcomed. It is reasonable that there should be a two-month gap after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give all concerned a suitable opportunity to prepare themselves for the new system. I do not believe that it is unreasonable. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will help and I hope that he will withdraw it. However, I commend amendments Nos. 17, 18, 33 and 34 to the House.

Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Minister correctly stated that, with regard to private operators, the "problem"—her word, not mine—was already well known. A sign that the action that has been discussed under the clause and the amendment was in the offing was provided in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill earlier this year. I should have thought that it weakened the Minister's case for an additional two-months' warning if it was fairly common knowledge earlier this year that such a provision was to be made.
I am always anxious to help when I see that the Minister is in any difficulty. My attention has been drawn to amendment No. 18. I ask the hon. Lady whether, under amendment No. 18, it is possible to vary the terms of a road service licence retrospectively if the GLC or the Metropolitan police feel it necessary to ask the traffic commissioners to do so. I have neither the time nor the assistance that the Minister has to obtain such a definition as quickly as she can, but if it were possible to vary the terms of such a road service licence retrospectively, that would take care of the problems that I have outlined.

Mrs. Chalker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said that the new clause gives the traffic commissioners the power to alter the terms of a licence or remove or attach additional conditions. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, if there is a problem with an existing service, and in the interests of safety, it will be quite possible for the traffic commissioners to alter the conditions of a road service licence. One cannot change what has already happened. Therefore, the Commissioners will not have the power to alter the terms of the licence retrospectively. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my meaning.

Mr. Snape: That explanation was hardly a blinding revelation——

Mrs. Chalker: Oh.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady should not be too churlish. I am trying to be nice. If she wishes me to remain in this mood, she should accept compliments, however ungracious they seem, when they are tossed her way.
I do not know whether it is correct to talk about such an alteration being made retrospectively. The terms of a road service licence might be subsequently altered by the traffic commissioners, perhaps as a result of an appeal made by either the GLC or the Metropolitan police. Again, I am anxious to help the Minister of State. If a problem arose in the two-month period to which the Opposition take exception, and an objection were made, surely it would be possible to vary the terms of a licence that had been issued to take care of that problem. I see that the cavalry, in the shape of various yellow flags, has arrived for the Minister of State——

Mrs. Chalker: What cavalry?

Mr. Snape: I do not suppose that the notes that one sees going backwards and forwards to Ministers during debates are anything but assistance of one sort or another. It might be paper cavalry, but some of us believe that this is a paper Administration.
The Minister of State asked me to withdraw the amendment. However, I have been advised that as I have not yet moved the amendment, its withdrawal would present some difficulty. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady said. Who knows, when the proper time comes, she might be in luck.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Clause 46

ORDERS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, ETC., WITHIN LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT GROUP AND BETWEEN THAT GROUP AND RAILWAYS BOARD GROUP

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 43, line 23, at end insert—
(a) any reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of that Act shall be read as a reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of the order in question; and
(b)

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment. It remedies a small omission in clause 46(9). I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50

RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 50, line 6, leave out "off-peak"

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

Mrs. Chalker: The House will be well aware of the basis on which we introduced in clauses 50 to 52 the reserve statutory scheme for free travel for London's elderly and disabled people. We are determined to safeguard the continuation of a free travel scheme if the boroughs fail to reach agreement on a voluntary, uniform scheme. We are not anxious to impose on the boroughs uniquely in statute the financial burden implied by such a generous scheme.
On Report, we drew attention to the fact that under subsection (7) London Regional Transport could alter the powers when experience showed that it was desirable to do so. The House subsequently voted against the amendments, which were designed to remove the evening peak exclusion. Stong feeling during debates in this place and in the other place showed that the statutory reserve scheme should apply throughout the afternoon and evening peak periods, and the amendments tabled in the other place were carried.
Many hon. Members have known for a long time how popular and important the concessionary fares scheme is to elderly people. Therefore, the Government have

decided to accept the amendment. LRT still has the powers to alter the periods outlined in subsection (6) if free travel during the evening peaks puts a serious strain on LRT's financial resources.
The subject of concessionary fares has caused more anxiety than any other subject in the Bill. I hope that Opposition Members, who are always talking about democracy, will recognise that in recommending the amendment we are acknowledging and responding to the wishes expressed on all sides of the House. We are well aware of the additional costs that it could involve, and of what the Greater London council is doing at present. Because the amendments in the other place were accepted, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Prescott: That is a simple exercise in democracy. The matter that caused considerable anxiety on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place was the Government's contentious view that the pensioners would not be worse off under the Bill. The Opposition made it clear what would happen if London Regional Transport took control and left the provision of a pension pass service to local authorities. The Government believed that local authorities would accept that responsibility. However, we made it clear that experience showed that London boroughs would not provide such a uniform and generous scheme for pensioners as that presently financed by the GLC.
The Government attacked Opposition Members, saying that we had no faith in local democracy or local authorities, and that we were scaremongering among the pensioners. However, the pensioners campaigned and complained bitterly that from their experience of different local authority pension schemes, which were introduced before the GLC introduced its uniform scheme. They knew what would happen in some London boroughs if it were left to the generosity of those authorities to provide them with a free pass. That pressure persuaded the Secretary of State to tell the House on Report that he had to move a reserve statutory scheme. He then claimed another victory, which was that the statutory scheme—the first one to be imposed—ensured that there would be no deterioration in pensioners' passes. On Report, the Secretary of State said of his new clauses:
There is, however, no reason why any local authority, if it so wishes, should not negotiate extra concessionary benefits, either over and above the statutory' scheme, if it comes into effect, or with operators who are outside it. I believe our scheme to be superior. It is backed by statute, as no scheme has ever been before. It has powers to prevent the boroughs or the GLC from charging a heavy fee for bus passes. It concentrates on off-peak periods—9.30 am to 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm to 1 am. That in itself will save the ratepayers £10 million in a full year."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 978–9.]
The difference between that scheme and the scheme presently enjoyed by pensioners and financed by the GLC, was that pensioners would not travel free during the evening peak period from 4.30 pm to 6 pm. The Government's only concession was that, in exchange for the loss of the off-peak period between 4.30 pm and 6 pm, pensioners' passes were extended from midnight to I am.
The Opposition's amendment to restore those privileges to the pensioners, which was defeated by the Tories in the House of Commons on 4 April, was made to the Bill in the House of Lords. We all welcomed that, especially the pensioners. I had thought that tonight we would have had a controversial debate in view of the Secretary of State's


remarks at Transport Question Time on Monday. He made it clear that LRT still had the power to make changes in the hours if it wished.
Through democratic pressure, the Government have accepted that the evening peak period should be restored to the pensioner's pass. Although I am unhappy that it was inserted in another place, it will be of great consolation to pensioners to know that, through pressure from them, the Opposition and the trade unions involved, we have established that they will not be worse off under the scheme. However, I warn the Secretary of State that if he tries to find a back door and to use LRT to do his dirty work, we shall with the pensioners, the GLC and the trade unions, fight him again.
We accept what the Minister said, although we should have preferred to hear it from the Secretary of State. He is better known for telling the House about the good sides of his policies than about the dirty sides. We accept that after a long struggle we have restored to the pensioners their right to retain a free travel scheme to operate from 9.30 am to 1 am as introduced and financed by the Labour GLC. That is the Opposition's great victory and it was achieved against massive Tory majorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The concession accepted by the Government is logical and comes in due time. It would be wrong to say to pensioners who were setting out on a journey to shop or to visit their families or friends that they must go home early or wait until later to return home. They would not have had the freedom of travel to which they have recently become increasingly entitled in London. We have always believed that local authorities should decide what entitlement to public transport their communities should have. The Government have decided to introduce a Bill to remove the right of local government in London to make those decisions. The least they can do, and what they are now doing, is to ensure that pensioners are not immediately prejudiced by the change in authority and control of transport in Greater London.
On behalf of the millions of constituents represented by London Members, may I say that we are glad that the Government have seen the error of their earlier ways, albeit reluctantly, and that at last pensioners will have nondiscriminatory rights to travel tomorrow as they have travelled in the recent past.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — Dartmoor Commons Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I go through the detailed provisions of the Bill, I shall try to paint a picture of the moor. I shall then deal briefly with the background to the Bill and explain why legislation is needed. At the outset, I pay tribute to the promoters, Devon county council, and to Dartmoor national park authority and its parliamentary agent for the thorough, efficient and courteous way in which they have carried out consultations and for the flexibility with which they have approached amendments. I record my personal thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who have played a formidable part in the negotiations behind the scenes, for their support, guidance and advice to me. I pay tribute to the research and secretarial help of the former secretary of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, who is currently the secretary of the Open Spaces Society. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, whose love of the countryside and concern for protecting the environment is well known.
Dartmoor is one of Britain's 10 national parks. It covers about 365 square miles, of which the core is approximately 150 square miles of common land. The moorland plateau rises to more than 2,000 feet at its highest. It is a sweeping wilderness, covered with blanket peat bogs and devastating and dangerous mires. Spectacular outcrops of igneous rock, known as tors, crown many of the hills. The larger granite masses are Hay, Hound and Vixen tors. The weathering of granite over millions of years has created all sorts of variations. There are logan stones, massive granite slabs which rock to and fro, tolmen rocks with huge holes in the centre gouged out by water action, and shaped granite blocks resembling animals and people, such as Bowerman's nose.
Dartmoor is one of the last great wildernesses in the south of England. It has the highest rainfall in England with more than 100 inches of rain, because it is the first upland that the rain-laden Atlantic winds encounter. The abundance of water, collected in the great sponge of the blanket bog on the Dartmoor plateau, pours off the moor and has carved deep valleys on the edges, clothed in rich and verdant woodland. The Dart, the Erme, the Plym, the Avon, the Teign and the Tavy all have their sources on Dartmoor. It is well known for its mists and its prisons; hon. Members may remember that Sherlock Holmes groped his way through the mists of Grimpen Mire to be confronted by the baying hound of the Baskervilles.
Dartmoor was the home of neolithic man 4,000 years ago, with some of the best preserved stone rows such as Merrivale, hut circles such as Grimspound, and encampments such as Kes tor. Spinster's rock boasts the remains of a chambered tomb, and there are good examples of kistvaens at Blackslade and medieval field boundaries at Foales Arrishes. The northern plateau is a grade I site of special scientific interest. Ironically, it has been remorselessly pounded by the military, creating 50 craters to the acre in the blanket bog.
I have set the scene. I can hear that hon. Members have the feel of the place, so I shall move on to the background to the Bill. It has been talked about for eight years or more. The problem is the misuse of 100,000 acres of common land by massive overgrazing on the periphery and massive undergrazing in the more inaccessible parts of the moor. The deterioration in shepherding and an increase in the number of animals turned out have caused the problem. That has followed generous headage payments from the Government.
By 1976, the 1,500 commoners were largely agreed that something had to be done, but the first Dartmoor Bill that was brought before the House in 1980 fell, largely because it got the balance wrong between agricultural interests and environmental and conservation interests. After a further four years of fine tuning, the new Bill in its present form enjoys the broad support of the Countryside Commission, the National Farmers Union, Dartmoor Commoners Association, the RSPCA, Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, the General Council for Physical Recreation, the Youth Hostels Association, the British Horse Society, the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Devon Trust for Nature Conservation, just to mention a few.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should make it clear that although many of those groups support the Bill, at least some of them have introduced petitions against the part dealing with criminal trespass. They might welcome the rest of the Bill, but they have strong reservations about that section.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. When the Bill was deposited, objections were received on a range of matters. As a result of the skill of the promoters in accommodating many of the points made by the petitioners, many of the petitions, or parts of them, have been withdrawn. I shall mention criminal trespass in a moment; the hon. Gentleman was right to mention it because there is some misunderstanding on that point.
I shall now address myself to the question: is legislation needed? All hon. Members must ask themselves that question when a private Bill comes before the House. I have repeatedly asked the commoners the same question. Do they really want more rules and regulations for Dartmoor? Does Dartmoor deserve a Bill? Is there no other way of sorting out their problems? The commoners, who have grazed the moor since the Black Prince restored their pre-Conquest rights in 1336, adamantly answer, "No. Legislation is the only way forward." That is largely because of the decline in, and the loss of impact of, the old manorial courts to which the commoners used to bring their grievances and which affected all the commons of Dartmoor.
It would be as well for the House to understand a little about the commoners' rights. They have the right to graze, to cut peat and to collect wood, among other things, and those rights are fundamental to the Bill. These rights are usually attached to the most secure part of the commoners' holding, which is normally the hearth and the chimney breast. In Anglo-Saxon times the hearth and the chimney breast were the only parts of a cottage that were unlikely to blow away, the rights were attached to them. They go back to Anglo-Saxon times. They are expressed like this:

Two cattle or horses, or Len sheep; peat and turves for fuel; stone, sand and gravel for repair of the holding; heath and fern for thatching.
The great environmentalist and Dartmoor preservationist, Lady Sylvia Sayer, attached to the hearth of her cottage at Cator the words:
So long as the hearth is there, the rights go with it.
I pay tribute to her for her outstanding contribution to the protection of Dartmoor.
All commoners have their rights and quotas of animals recorded in registers that are set up and housed in the county council building in accordance with the Commons Registration Act 1965. The registers are now closed but there are disputes about ownership and rights. The Commons Commissioner is currently hearing such disputes and making decisions. Until those deliberations are concluded the Bill cannot bite because not all the commoners will have registered the number of animals that can be grazed. Will the Minister take steps to appoint a further Commons Commissioner to assist the present incumbent because that is obviously an important task that must be completed?
Clause 8 is an important and interesting provision. It prevents common rights from being sold separately from the property to which they are attached. The clause is aimed at landowners who buy up all the common rights so that they can then free the land from its common status and do what they like with it.
Although common rights are in theory enforceable, in practice no one will take the necessary action. Stories of cowboys unloading cattle trucks on the commons in the middle of the night are rife. But nothing is done to follow up those stories or to pursue the cattle that have been put out on the moor. Some farmers do not seem over-concerned about the sickly state of their animals, and that is not being challenged either. Without power to deal with overgrazing, the vegetation of many commons, especially those near the road, have been eroded so badly that besides looking unpleasant there is little nutrition left for the increasing numbers of stock. The less meticulous farmers are driving out the more conscientious grazers who will not risk their animals being affected by sheep scab or brucellosis.
Not only are there no powers for the commoners to regulate the grazing of the commons, but the National Park Authority has no powers to protect the moor from the increasing number of city dwellers who visit the moor for its solitude and tranquillity. Once any one of the 8 million visitors sets foot on the commons he is technically trespassing. He enjoys no right to walk or ride there. Furthermore, the Litter Act 1958 does not apply since the commons are not a public place. There are no powers to stop anti-social pursuits such as motor cycle scrambling and crossbow shooting. The concentration of large numbers of people, vehicles and horses damages the terrain, scarring the landscape and making it unpleasant for walkers. That is obviously having a serious adverse effect on the natural beauty and wildlife of the moor. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy.
Part I deals with animal welfare and good agricultural practice. Clause 3 establishes a Commoners' Council, totalling 26 people, of whom 16 will be commoners, four from each quarter of the moor. At the moment there are 31 commoners' associations covering all of the 100,000 acres of commons throughout the moor. They will be


allowed to elect 16 commoners from amongst their number, four from each quarter of the moor. They will represent those with grazing rights in each parish.
In addition, there will be two small graziers from the Commoners' Council who graze fewer than 50 sheep, 10 horses or 10 cattle. There will be two representatives of the 55 landowners, one representative of the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns over half the common land, and two representatives of the Dartmoor national park authority, one a county councillor and the other an appointee of the Secretary of State for the Environment. There has been an additional member since the Bill was before the House, a vet—because part I deals with animal welfare. In addition, the council may co-opt two people as professional advisers.
The attractiveness of the Commoners' Council is that it will be self-regulatory and self-financing. It is based on the old adage and Tory philosophy that self-help is probably best. The council will ensure that commoners do not graze more animals than they are entitled to graze. Once the registration process has been completed—I drew the Minister's attention to the problem of the delay in registration which means that the Bill cannot take effect—the finite number of animals which can be grazed on any one of the 93 common land units will be known. When necessary, for the well-being of the commons and the animals, the council may fix the number at a lower level as set out in clause 5(1)(b).
Some commoners have rights, not just on their abutting or immediate common, but on all the commons of the Forest of Dartmoor. Those are known as venville rights. Historically, they are of great interest, but the Bill does not affect them.
To carry out that work the Commoners' Council will appoint reeves. That is a nice historical term in clause 6. Probably the commoners will be the reeves. They will see that the regulations made by the council—in clause 5—are upheld. The reeves will be volunteers and the system will work well if the precedent at Spitchwick and Holne is anything to go by. There the old manorial courts still sit. When the Bill was before the House in 1980 there was quite a discussion because it was felt that the reeves would not work and hon. Members asked who would raise the money for them. The answer is that they will work because they are the commoners themselves, policing their own commons.
The effectiveness of the reeves will depend on a second register set out in clause 7. Let me explain that. The first register, the one in county hall, lists all the 1,500 commoners with grazing rights. Under the Bill there will be a second register, which will be kept and maintained by the Commoners' Council, of those currently exercising their grazing rights. At the moment I am advised that that is about 450. There will be two registers, one dealing with who has rights, the other, which the Commoners' Council will maintain, telling people who is exercising his rights and what his animals and their markings are. That will be available for all to see. The reeves and the council will know what people are misusing their rights or what animals are straying.
For each animal which is on the Commoners' Council register the owner will pay a 30p charge or levy which will go towards financing and paying for the council. There will probably not be enough to pay for the reeves. It is

worth mentioning that as the reeves will probably have their animals out on the common they will easily be able to identify animals that should not be there. The House is probably familiar with the practice of learing, whereby herds of cattle and sheep are trained at an early age to stay in close proximity to the commons on which they were reared. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, who is well known for his agricultural prowess, is obviously familiar with that particular problem.
That is the first part of the Bill. It deals with animal welfare and good agricultural practice. It also has a bearing on the environmental interests. How the moor looks affects walkers, ramblers, riders and others.
The second part of the Bill aims to give the public a right to walk and ride over the common land. That is clause 10. It sets an important precedent. The 1980 Bill gave that right only to walkers, but this Bill extends it to horse riders, who have enjoyed riding over the moor for centuries. Some have, unfortunately, ridden to their deaths, as Childe's Tomb in the middle of Fox tor mires bears witness. Land erosion has taken place as a result of the commercial riding stables following the same tracks. The national park authority will have powers to regulate which tracks are used in consultation with the horse riding interests.
I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who, unfortunately, could not be here this evening. He is a great horse rider and spoke with great passion and feeling in the proceedings on the earlier Bill about the need to include the horse riding interests as a statutory right. I am glad that the promoters have been able to accommodate him, and to include a statutory right for the horse to ride over the commons. It is only right to point out that the commercial riding stables have 30 or 40 horses going over the same track two or three time a day, and this badly erodes the land. This is why the national park authority will have powers to regulate where they go. It will not affect their statutory rights, but where they go will be determined by the national park authority.
The statutory right of access was not challenged when the Bill previously came before the House. The Country Landowners Association, in a petition lodged in the House a few days before the closing date for which petitions have to be lodged, expressed disagreement with the concept for the first time. Although broadly supporting the Bill, the country landowners believe that every one of the 55 landowners on Dartmoor should be deemed to have entered into an access agreement with the county council. Those could be varied to reflect local needs and the demands of individual landowners.
In practice, the difference between a statutory right and a deemed access agreement can best be illustrated by explaining what would happen if a walker were confronted by a landowner when walking across the moor. If there were a statutory right, which is what the Bill proposes, the owner could ask the walker to leave his land and the walker could say, "Parliament has given me a right by law to walk or ride over your land, and I am going to do that." But, if there were a deemed access agreement, the walker could say, "Although I have no right to be here, I am not a trespasser and you cannot throw me off." In practice, therefore, there is virtually no difference, other than the words, between the two except that "deemed access" bears potential for restriction and confusion.
I will explain why there would be confusion. It is because the common land units on Dartmoor are joined one and another in one block with no physical boundaries between the two. Therefore, if there were different access agreements for walkers and riders on the land of each of the 55 landowners, the walkers and riders would be unable to judge when they were moving from one common on to another common, and what conditions applied to each. I understand that the national park authority might then be compelled to erect notice boards at the boundaries of each common, saying exactly what the rights of the public would be. The House can imagine that the picture that I have given of this wilderness and beauty would be ruined if, on every occasion that one crossed on to another moor there were a big sign—there are enough signs already belonging to the Ministry of Defence—explaining what one might do and what one might not do. It is clear that deemed access agreements are not as attractive as the country landowners believe they are. I am advised that, of the 55 landowners on Dartmoor, about half are members of the Country Landowners Association, and half of those are opposed to a statutory right of access. Somewhere between 14 and 15 are opposed to a statutory right of access. The other 40 are in favour.
Further, deemed access agreements are contrary to the recommendations of that august body, the Royal Commission on common land, which in 1958 stated that a legal right of access on commons would make the law simpler and give effect to a long-established custom. Consultations have taken place over the past four years on the basis that the statutory right of access would form part of the Bill.
Environmental, conservation and recreation organisations agreed to the package. The Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Youth Hostels Association, the British Horse Society, the Cyclists Touring Club—and the House may remember that, in a fit of pique, I suggested that there should be a statutory right for cyclists over the moor on the last occasion that the Bill came before the House—and the British hang-gliders organisation are all adamantly opposed to changes in the access provisions at this late stage. The deal was struck that there would be a statutory right of access for the walkers and the horse riders. The conservationists, the environmentalists and the animal-loving organisations have behaved in a most responsible and impeccable way on that basis. It was only at the eleventh hour that they were suddenly advised that there was a proposal to change it, and they have responded in consultations with the county council to the effect that they would be thoroughly opposed to it.

Mr. W. Benyon: I do not know the area in the way that my hon. Friend does, but am I not right that the land ownings on the moor vary considerably, and that half the problem is that some farms lie within the common area, although they are not commons? Secondly, am I not right that the Duchy will enter into an agreement with the park authority? If it is possible for the Duchy, why is it not possible for the rest?

Mr. Steen: The Duchy has approximately 50 per cent. of the commons. I am glad to advise my hon. Friend—and the country landowners may not know this yet—that the Duchy through its own Attorney-General, although the Duchy is outside the terms of the Bill, and

could not be involved if it did not want to be, has agreed recently that the same statutory right of access for the walker and for the rider should be given to riders and walkers over the Duchy land just as in the Bill they have a statutory right over the other land. Thus, the country landowners have expressed themselves as ready to follow the Duchy's lead. I am glad to say that the Duchy has now led by saying, "We shall follow the statutory right of access in the Bill for riders and walkers."
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) may not know the moor as well as I do, and I should like him to come to the moor. I invite him to come and walk over the moor with hon. Members who represent Devon, and we will show him what the problems are. We could also take the Whips on duty, and show them just how it is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, because it is an important and worrying one. I am much encouraged by the responsible attitude of the Duchy. It owns the commons in the highest, most remote part of the moor, and it has set this lead. I think that the country landowners will find it encouraging. The last thing that the House would wish to do is to pass legislation by agreeing to a deemed access arrangement which must make things more complex and open to all sorts of confusion.
The House should know that a statutory right of access will help the landowners. They will no longer be liable for the injury of walkers or riders on their land. At present, if somebody has an accident, they are liable if that person does something that he should not do. The county council proposes to add a clause to the existing Bill making the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 not applicable here. 'The county council is also willing to add a clause making it clear that the national park authority will make good any damage caused by the public to a landowner's land. Again, this is a quid pro quo, and many landowners will he encouraged by such a provision.
There are other advantages for landowners. Besides drawing up byelaws to regulate the public use and appointing wardens to enforce them, under clause 11 the national park authority may restrict access in certain circumstances. Indeed, the point was raised earlier in the debate about the restriction of access in certain circumstances. This is to protect ancient monuments, scientifically important sites, young trees and the like. The concern is that people who disregard these restrictions intentionally or not, are, according to the Bill, criminally liable under clause 10(8). The argument is that the criminal offence would take place when a member of the public deliberately ignored notices erected and approved by the county council to prohibit access for a limited period. This would be in extreme cases because there was some danger or special ecological reason that the space should not be entered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman used some crucial words there by saying that someone would deliberately ignore notices. As I read the Bill, that is not included. It is possible for a person to do this accidentally, as I read the Bill, and still to commit a criminal offence.

Mr. Steen: I am somewhat troubled by that remark because in the criminal law, as I recollect it, one needs two ingredients. One needs something called the actus reus, the going across that particular notice, and the mens rea, the intention to do so. If there was not the intention to cross the notice, and it was inadvertently crossed, I do not see


how a criminal offence could have been committed. It could have been committed only if there were the intention to defy the notice, and the defying of the notice.
The idea is that the county council will not put up "No" notices. It does not want to see notices going up all over the moor. However, in exceptional cases it wants to protect against people going somewhere that they should not. I am advised by a Dartmoor national park officer that behind one of the information kiosks in the park there is an exceptional piece of bog land where certain frogs proliferate. The frogs are very rare and the last thing that he wants is for the public to go there while they are mating. He would like to put up a sign saying that children going to the information kiosk should not rush there and disturb frogs getting on with the job, and so ruin a piece of ecological and natural development. Perhaps that helps the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
This issue has nothing to do with trespass. Trespass is, of course, a civil offence and no one is trespassing on anyone's land. The national park will put up a notice once it has gained the county council's approval. The notice will say that people should not walk on a certain part of the moor. Provided that the period involved is less than 28 days, there is no need for an advertisement. Several of my constituents have written to me on that point, and I am sure that it will be discussed further. However, I hope that that explanation will be of some help. Some organisations, including the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, feel that the Bill should include an out-wintering clause.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend accept that some owners on Dartmoor feel very strongly about access? Although the CLA has petitioned against the Bill, its objective is to achieve constructive solutions and it is not bent on sinking it.

Mr. Steen: That was a most helpful intervention. Perhaps I should have explained that the country landowners were in favour of the first Bill. The problem of access has cropped up in the second Bill. The problem for the promoters is that some 40 of the landowners on Dartmoor believe that a statutory right is perfectly acceptable. For hundreds of years people have travelled over the moor by horse and by foot and no one has objected to it. It is only because of the legislation that the matter has raised its head. The question is whether the landowner should have his right extinguished by an Act, or whether he should have some agreement with the county council that affords the walker or rider the same protection, but gives him the freedom to say that it is his land: The only snag is all the ramifications involved. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised that point. I have dwelt for some time on that issue, but it is of great interest and it would be wrong not to deal with the Bill in its entirety.
As I have said, some organisations feel that there should be an out-wintering clause. By that, it is meant that the commons should be cleared entirely of all livestock for three months in the winter, since the weather is particularly severe on the moor.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can be.

Mr. Steen: Can be, and often is. Whereas in earlier days, there was sufficient space on the inbye land—land

attached to the farm or holding—for the animals out on the moor in the summer to be kept in those fields during the winter, nowadays, because of the increase in the number of animals that most commoners have as a result of the headage payments that the Government have generously given, there is insufficient space on the inbye land to accommodate them. There is a further problem that the farmers use the inbye land for making silage and for feeding the animals in winter, and they cannot put the animals there and create feed for them. Thus, as long as there are more animals on the moor than they have inbye land for out-wintering cannot be a practical solution. Furthermore, the animals are bred to be particularly tough on Dartmoor and are greatly sought after because of their strength and robustness. Once they are put on to inbye land in the winter, they will lose their strength and hardiness.
The conservationists complain that as a result of the animals staying out on the moor in winter, some of the moorland becomes rutted because farm vehicles cross the wet terrain to feed the out-wintered cattle. They argue that the flora and fauna would improve if the moor were cleared of animals for a few months each year. However, the practicalities do not allow that. I have had to explain to the Dartmoor Preservation Association and the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society that it is not a feasible provision to include in the Bill, even though it is an attractive idea.
Although there is no out-wintering clause in the Bill, the Commoners' Council has powers under clause 5(1)(e)
to exclude from grazing on the commons … any animal which in the opinion of the Commoners' Council either has become unthrifty, or is in such a condition that to allow it to remain depastured on the commons would be likely to cause it unnecessary suffering".
The county council has agreed to add
or cause offence to the public".
At Easter, I was walking my constituency's boundaries and I had never before seen so many dead ponies or sheep. I raised the matter with the chairman of the Commoners Association, Herbert Whitley, who rightly pointed out that the first Bill included the words
or cause offence to the public
which had miraculously slipped out of the second Bill.
Thanks to him, this Bill will include those words.
The clause will thus deal with the problem of dead ponies and sheep that are scattered over the moor, particularly in late spring, and which are becoming increasingly offensive. The farmers and commoners will be responsible for clearing them. It is not a question of them being abandoned by the fanners. There are all sorts of reasons why the animals die. There are a lot of parasite problems on the moor, and by March or April the grass is extremely thin and the new grass has not started. The animals die from a mixture of under-nourishment and disease.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is there not yet another reason why we all die?

Mr. Steen: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. That is perfectly true, but most of the animals are not of that age. Many of them are in foal and just do not get the necessary nutrition from the moor. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and, as always, useful intervention.
I shall deal briefly with tree planting. The Bill gives powers to the Commoners' Council to plant clumps of trees. They have to be indigenous to Dartmoor, which


means hawthorn, ash or oak. They will be sited to give animals protection during the wild winter months. The environmentalists have expressed concern at the prospect of clumps of trees springing up all over the moor, albeit less than an acre in extent and over a mile apart. I should like to reassure the House that, since the commoners will have to pay for the trees, and fencing them will continue to be subject to ministerial consent under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, it is most unlikely that Dartmoor will become Dartmoor forest again.
The Bill is intended to deal with a serious and longstanding problem, which affects a national asset of great importance. The Bill will benefit the public, the livestock industry and the wildlife which has its habitat on the moor. The Bill also demonstrates that agricultural and environmental interests can be compatible and symbiotic.
The conservationists need the commoners to maintain their livestock and so keep the commons accessible. The commoners need the ramblers, the Open Spaces Society and other conservation groups to ensure that the land is safeguarded. I believe that the Bill may pave the way for more general legislation affecting common land.
It has been a great privilege to be given the opportunity to promote the Bill for a part of the country which I have known and walked for more than a quarter of a century and with which I have been associated as a life member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association. The Bill turns a page in the long history of Dartmoor on which man has lived and toiled for over 4,000 years. I commend it to the House.

Sir Peter Mills: I declare an interest, since most of Dartmoor is in my constituency. It is a privilege to be able to speak about it tonight.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for all the hard work that he has done. He worked with tenacity and skill and he is to be congratulated. When the Bill was before the House previously, my hon. Friend did not take the same view. I believe in conversions and it is a great thing for a person to be converted and changed. My hon. Friend could not have been more helpful. I congratulate him again.
Dartmoor is superb. It is a lovely area, enclosing lovely small towns. The moorland people are tough, hardy and shrewd. The Bill is important for Devon and Dartmoor. My hon. Friend rightly stressed the national interest, but the Bill is also important for Devon and Dartmoor itself, because much is at stake.
Dartmoor creates strong views. One has only to read in the papers what people say about me to realise what strong views Dartmoor stimulates. I also have strong views. My position is clear. I love Dartmoor. I have been around Dartmoor for longer than most hon. Members and longer than many of the people who talk about Dartmoor. The big difference is that I believe that one must consider the needs of those who live and work there and the economic problems of the district.
I was disappointed that the previous Bill failed. It was tragic, because many years were lost and some deterioration has taken place. We could have made an earlier start on tackling the problems. It is no good looking to the past; we must look to the future. The need for the Bill is obvious, particularly to those who live and work in the area. Indeed, in some aspects the need is acute.
We need some form of control. That is essential in these modern times. I remember the times when my grandparents went out on the moor in a pony and trap and when I went out in an ancient Buick motor car for my first picnic on Dartmoor. The hills were so steep that we had to stop and reverse up the hill. In those days few people used the moor and only a few cattle and other stock were grazed there. That was 50 or 55 years ago. An enormous change has taken place. Today, vast numbers of tourists and much more livestock use the moor. The need for more control is apparent and essential.

Sir Peter Emery: Not only the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and those associated with the moor appreciate the need for development and for the Bill. People living in areas which are not contiguous with the moor appreciate the need for development. Not only those who are lucky enough to live in that beautiful part of our county, but people throughout the county have a feeling about the moor.

Sir Peter Mills: My hon. Friend is right, although I have a slight bias towards my own patch.

Mr. Steen: According to the Dartmoor national park authority, about £7 million-worth of stock now use the moor and 8 million people visit the moor each year. Things have changed dramatically.

Sir Peter Mills: That is right. Overstocking exists. The grants which are so important to the moorland farmer have had some effect. Dartmoor is a great reservoir of stock which must be fattened and which are essential for the lowland farmer and for the consumer. We must consider carefully the problem of health and the control of disease. That is not easy on Dartmoor. We must also preserve and protect areas of outstanding beauty.
Only a small minority of farmers make life unfair and unpleasant for the remaining farmers. The majority are hard-working. They care about their stock and deplore the activities of the few. The Dartmoor farmer—the salt of the earth—was there long before the tourist and preservationist. He has a right to be there and to be respected. He also has a task and must get on with it.
I am proud of moorland farmers such as John Hodge and others whose fathers and grandfathers have farmed the moors for years. They care. They are concerned. It is wrong to condemn Dartmoor farmers as a body, because of a small minority.
The question is one of balance. No one interested party can have it all its own way. The farmers cannot, nor can the preservationists or tourists. There must be a balance. The Bill achieves that balance. That is why I support it and recommend it to the House.
I am sad and disappointed at the Country Landowners Association's reactions. Of course I understand its objection to access, but over many years the right of people to walk over the moor has been accepted. It is in the interests of all to allow the Bill to go forward. I am glad that the CLA is not asking hon. Members to vote against the Bill. I am also grateful to others who have shown great tolerance and understanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has an interest in horses and handicapped riders. He has been helpful. In the House one hardly dares mention fox hunting, but I believe that if ever a place was


suitable for fox hunting, it is Dartmoor. There is no question about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) has been concerned with that issue.
One has also to bear in mind the animal welfare lobby and the ban on over-wintering. On the surface it all seems reasonable, but there are practical reasons why over-wintering on Dartmoor must be continued. It has disadvantages, but the advantages outweigh them. Again, we must listen carefully to the views of the farmers who are looking after their stock.
I hope that I do not exaggerate when I say that my main concern for Dartmoor is not the farmer or preservationist, but the enormous burden imposed by the ever-increasing number of tourists coming on to the moor. We in Devon welcome them. We must, for they are part of our bread and butter, though it is extraordinary how little of Dartmoor they visit. There are real problems when one considers the whole question of tourism, and that is why the Bill will be of help. Undoubtedly, tourism creates problems. As I say, we need tourists, and the Bill will help deal with the problems they pose.
As for the future, if the House agrees to the Bill, as I hope it will, and we can, in Committee, overcome any outstanding problems—we must listen to people and see what we can do to help—the enactment of the measure will result in great advantages. I am sure that the various interests, given good will, can work together. I believe that I can say, in view of all the attacks that have been made on me personally, that perhaps a new chapter can be written in the history of Dartmoor.
If we must adapt and change slightly in the light of experience as we see the Bill working, I hope that we shall be big enough to do exactly that and that the council will listen to what people say. This measure and what it will achieve may be the pattern for elsewhere in the country. Let us try to make the Bill a success. I believe that, with good will, we can do that.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish at the outset to pay tribute to the industry, tact and capacity for listening and decision-making shown by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). He has borne the burden of the Bill, not only in Parliament, but in the immense amount of work outside, working closely with the gifted parliamentary agent, Mr. Durken, who has been handling the Bill on this occasion, and the clerk to the county council, Mr. Macklin and his staff.
Nobody can claim that the Bill satisfies everyone. The nature and history of Dartmoor are such that the interests involved are not, and never have been, conterminous. The Bill represents the best possible overall compromise, and for that the thanks of the House are due to those whom I have singled out for praise.
The interests involved in Dartmoor throughout history have been even more diverse than some which have been described. The reason for the reference to the "forest" of Dartmoor has nothing to do with trees, any more than a deer forest in Scotland is primarily the location of silviculture. "Forest" was the word applied to the Norman laws for the pursuit of game, and it is in that context that Dartmoor was referred to as a "forest".
The interesting characteristic of Dartmoor, unlike many other open spaces, is the extent to which throughout history it has been in the service of man. Surrounded by Norman castles at Lydford, Oakhampton and Gidleigh, for instance, a considerable part of Dartmoor was, and arguably still is, subject to that separate corpus of law called the Stannary law, which had to do with the winning of tin from the granite resources of Dartmoor. Indeed, the Stannary prison was in Lydford castle; and Lydford and Tavistock are Stannary towns. For centuries the water power of Dartmoor was harnessed in the great woollen towns, not only Tavistock but, for example, Ashburton and Buckfastleigh. Dartmoor has been a resource for food, for producing livestock, and for breeding horses tough enough to stand the climate of Devon, to be used in transporting those who ride them and to draw agricultural vehicles which they used.
There are manorial, common, Stannary, duchy and common law rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole. Anyone who claims that it is possible to draft a Bill which will meet all the aspirations of such disparate, though wholly legitimate, interests is wrong. There can be only compromise or chaos. Those are the alternatives.
When the pressure on Dartmoor was less—because the holiday visitors were fewer in number, the costs of agriculture were lower and the roads were worse—it was possible to resolve these conflicts by custom, without statute law. The confluence of those various pressures has made it clear that a private Bill is necessary to resolve those conflicts reasonably and temperately, and that is why the Bill commands the support of all Devon Members and many others in all parts of the House. However, they include a number of Devon Members, including myself, parts of whose constituencies lie in Dartmoor.
I was born at Ivybridge on the edge of Dartmoor. As a child, I walked and rode over considerable portions of Dartmoor, some of which I recognise as totally different from the descriptions given of them by those who visit them only occasionally. I look on the Bill as the only alternative to a chaos which will not go away, and which cannot be resolved in any other way.
Second Reading debates exist not to alter Bills but to approve or otherwise their general principles. The Committees process on a private Bill—this may not be generally known outside Parliament—excludes all hon. Members who have any constituency or personal interest. Thus, the Committee has a more judicial composition than does the Standing Committee on a public general Bill. It hears petitioners who have what is technically called good locus standi.
I hope that that process will not be abused, because Devon county council lives in a world of severe financial constraints. It does not have unlimited resources with which to finance expensive gentleman of the long robe to represent it viva voce in Committees of this House. I hope, therefore, that any hon. Members, if there still be any at the conclusion of this debate, who are unable to accept the measure as drafted—remembering the immense amount of compromise that has gone into it—will be measured, temperate and brief in putting their case to the Committee which will hear it. I commend the Bill to the House.

8 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As one of those who put their names to the blocking of Second Reading, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. I


did so because I felt that this was an issue worthy of at least three hours of debate in the House. It is a sad reflection on the House that we have insufficient opportunities to discuss the problems of the countryside, and in particular access to the countryside. It is not my intention to vote against Second Reading because I welcome most of the Bill, but I shall express a few reservations about clause 10.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on the way in which he has introduced the Bill and the work that he has done to bring all the groups together. It is a nice bit of poetic justice that he is one of those who mucked up the last Bill on this subject, and if he manages to steer through a replacement for it that meets most of the objections he will have done well.
In his introduction, he referred to the issue about which I am concerned. A question is raised by clause 10(8), which concerns criminal trespass. If his explanation to the House was of what is in the Bill, I should not be too unhappy, but his explanation was not of what is in the Bill. We have to deal with what is written in clause 10(8), and that gives me considerable concern. It is important that the national parks should have power, in consultation with the commoners, to regulate occasionally the areas to which people can go. However, it should not be a criminal offence for someone to ignore the notices, particularly if the individual has not seen them.
As I read clause 10(8), it does not specify whether one has actually seen the notice, but whether closure is required by the notices. There is thus a matter of concern there. If someone accidentally ignores one of the notices and does no damage, it is unreasonable that he would be liable to a fine of up to £400.

Mr. Steen: If in clause 10(8) the words "with intent" were added, would that change the hon. Gentleman's approach?

Mr. Bennett: It is probably not very useful for us to negotiate across the Floor of the House, and it is probably not effective as I am not a trained lawyer, and should not wish to give any undertakings. However, I hope that it will be possible, as the Bill goes into Committee, for some discussions to take place. The Ramblers Association and the British Mountaineering Council have a petition on this point, and I hope that it will be possible to find some solution to the problem other than to make it a criminal offence if someone ignores one of those notices, such as making it merely a civil offence if damage is done.
I also hope that punishment will depend on the person seeing the notices. The placing of notices will be difficult. The hon. Member for South Hams said that we do not want the whole moor covered with notices, which could be unsightly. There is difficulty in making sure that adequate notice is given. In clause 10(3) there is provision for protecting such things as the ancient monuments, and areas of historical, scientific or archaeological interest, all of which are legitimate reasons why it may be necessary to introduce a closure. However, I hope that we shall not introduce the criminal law.
I suspect that the vast majority of people who go out to walk to enjoy Dartmoor and other parts of the countryside would not want to do damage, and on the whole would be willing to follow any notices or requests not to walk on a particular area for the reasons set out. However, they might feel a little narked and uneasy if the criminal law were brought into the matter. I hope that as

the Bill goes into Committee the promoters will examine this point and find a solution that makes it possible to enforce much of what is in clause 10(3) without making it a criminal offence.
I question the inclusion in clause 10 of the procedures for closing footpaths and bridleways. In the rest of the country there is a fairly well-established standard of procedure for diversions and closures of footpaths and bridleways, so it is a little odd to include that in clause 10. It may be difficult for somebody if they have planned a long-distance walk involving public footpaths and they suddenly come to a point at which the route is closed by one of these notices. In other parts of the country it would normally be necessary to make a diversion order. In this area, all that would happen is that the footpaths would be closed and the individual might know that he can go on the common to get round the closed off area. However, that might not be made clear and we need to make it clear to people that they will have the right to divert round the area covered by the notices to continue the route that they were following. It would have been better if footpaths and bridleways had been left out of this section and had continued to be dealt with under the legislation for the rest of the country.
There is not much problem for most walkers if they have to divert from the footpath or bridleway, but there might be considerable difficulty for someone with a bicycle, for whom diverting over the rest of the open space might cause considerably more difficulty than for the walker. I hope that the inclusion of footpaths and bridleways in this section is perhaps considered so that it may be dealt with the rest of the country through national legislation rather than through special power of closure in this Bill.
Clause 10(3)(b) says that the footpath may be closed
after consultation with the Commoners' Council, whenever it appears that by reason of an outbreak of disease amongst animals it is expedient to do so".
I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considerable powers to close land if it is necessary as a result of disease. What instances are the promoters looking for where they need special powers under this legislation to close land as a result of outbreaks of disease that are not covered in the powers that the Ministry already has?
I understand that something has gone into the Bill through petition by the Country Landowners Association, which wants a different approach to access. That causes me and, I hope, the House considerable concern. The hon. Member for South Hams and the other promoters have gone a long way to meet almost all the objections. To have the whole spirit of the Bill altered as a result of petition from the Country Landowners Association would not only be unfortunate for this Bill—some of us might find that we had to oppose it or at least delay the Bill considerably in its proceedings—but would create a precedent for other parts of the country that would cause many people a great deal of concern.
I hope that the association, even at this stage, will sense the mood of the House and decide not to proceed with its petition. If it withdrew it and if there were further negotiations with ramblers and the British Mountaineering Council, it might be possible for the proceedings in Committee to be short. The fears of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that learned counsel


would be making a great deal of money out of those proceedings could be allayed. In those circumstances the proceedings in Committee would be extremely brief.
The idea that there should be automatic compensation for allowing access is an unfortunate one. People should be compensated if they suffer as a result of access. I understand that it has been made clear that the park authority will have the power to make good any damage that is caused by access. I do not believe that much damage is caused by an individual gaining access but sometimes damage is created because of the volume of those who gain it. It is an important function of national parks to ensure that they make good the damage that farmers and individual landowners suffer as a result of substantial numbers going on to their land.
Earlier in the year we had a brief debate on landowners' liability. It seems that a reasonable compromise has been arrived at and it would be unfortunate if the commoners were held liable for accidents to walkers or climbers when the landowner is not responsible. I know that there are occasions when barbed wire is erected. I recently came across the deliberate placing of barbed wire on a rock climb, which created a nasty set of circumstances for the individual. If a landowner deliberately causes a hazard for someone who is legitimately on his land, he should not be exempt from liability. If an accident occurs merely as a result of someone walking or climbing in circumstances in which the landowner has no responsibility, it is important that we relieve the landowner of liability.
If the Bill is to work, the Government must ensure that the park authority has the resources to carry out its increasing responsibilities and that the Countryside Commission has adequate resources as well. With a small amount of Government expenditure we can offer sufficient carrots to make it attractive for more and more landowners and farmers to open up their land and allow access to the general public for everyone's benefit and for the better understanding of the countryside by the many who go out to enjoy it from the towns. I am worried that the Government are leaving the commission and the national parks far too short of resources so that they cannot act as mediators and play a helpful role.
When the Minister intervenes, I hope that he will welcome the Bill, tell us that the Government will support most of its provisions and give an assurance that more money will be made available so that the commission and the national parks can continue to play a helpful role.

Miss Janet Fookes: I do not wish to pursue in detail the arguments on access that were advanced by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I hope that those issues can be resolved satisfactorily.
I think it can be safely said that there has never been so thorough and excellent a job done in consulting on access and all the other issues that are contained in the Bill as that which has been carried out by the Devon county council and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I commend their activities and congratulate them on undertaking the task in the most thorough and painstaking way possible. The large measure of agreement that has been achieved is undoubtedly due to the enormous amount of spadework. Anyone not involved would be

unable to realise the extent of the work that has gone into the Bill. I am glad to pay tribute to those who have worked so well and for so many hours.
When the Bill's predecessor failed, I can remember experiencing a sickening sense of disappointment. It was not the loss of the public right of access or anything of that nature that caused that sense of disappointment. It was caused by the feeling that there was to be an indefinite postponement of what I saw as urgent reforms to improve the welfare of animals on Dartmoor.
Dartmoor ponies are extremely lovable, but there are many more thousands of other animals on Dartmoor, including sheep, and they should not be overlooked, especially when we think of the ponies which are so well-known to us all.
I am more aware than most, perhaps because of my close connection with the RSPCA, of the difficulties of looking after animals when they are free to roam. I do not think that all of them are quite so well trained as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams suggested as to remain near to their own piece of common.

Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that the horses are experienced in remaining in the same part of the common. I was saying that all the other animals have that experience.

Miss Fookes: I was referring to the totality of animals. I am concerned—my concern will remain until the Bill is safely on the statute book—about the opportunity that is given to a minority of owners to neglect their duties. I say "minority" advisedly, because I am certain that the majority of those who have animals on the moor are only too anxious to ensure that they are well looked after. Unfortunately, there are a few owners—I mention no names but I reckon that my hon. Friends and I could easily produce half a dozen—who have shamefully neglected their duties.
Given the nature of the moor, it has been extremely difficult to bring such owners to justice by any normal means provided by the law. For example, RSPCA inspectors have found it virtually impossible successfully to bring prosecutions because of the impossibility of proving intent to neglect or to ill-treat animals. It is all too easy for the owner, once he has been traced, to say, "I have been looking for this animal for weeks and I have not been able to find it." Who can prove otherwise, even if it is known in one's heart of hearts that the owner has spoken a lot of rubbish? None the less, the prosecution will not stand up in court.
In many instances there has been difficulty in assigning the ownership of animals. There cannot be a prosecution if the owner of the animals is not known. These two factors have caused a great deal of misery which we have not been able to eradicate by the normal operation of the law.
I am sure that my hon. Friends, like myself, have often seen direct evidence of neglect or have had it brought to their attention by those who walk the moors. I know of the upset and anger that has been caused by the suffering of unfortunate animals. I welcome warmly and gladly the parts of the Bill that deal with animal welfare.
It is right that the commoners should govern themselves through the institution of the Commoners' Council. Most British people have a sturdy sense of independence. On the moor that sturdy sense of independence is very much more marked, and the commoners are far more likely to make


a success of the enterprise if they impose the rules on themselves than if the rules are imposed by people whom they would regard as outsiders. The provision for a Commoners' Council made up of representatives of the commoners is an important feature of the Bill.
It is wise to have two representatives of the small graziers on the council, as they might otherwise feel left out in the cold. I also welcome the inclusion of a veterinary surgeon. He will be able to give wise professional advice on all matters relating to animal welfare. This addition to the Bill is an excellent one. I am pleased to see that it has been accepted by all those involved.
Bearing in mind the difficulty of establishing the ownership of animals, I am pleased to see that among the powers given to the Commoners' Council there will be the power to ensure that animals have permanent markings which will enable them to be identified. That may sound mundane, but the key to the enforcement of any welfare provisions is the ability to trace owners and link them to a particular animal.
Despite the reservations of some, I am pleased that clumps of trees are to be planted to give shelter for animals. Anyone who has been on Dartmoor in the winter, or even on some of our chillier summer days, will know how bleak the moor can be on occasions. The selective planting of trees to give protection and shelter to animals will be welcome both to them and to those who have their interests at heart.
I am also pleased that there is to be power to remove animals which would suffer if they were to remain on the common any longer. I have slight reservations about the failure to provide that all animals should be taken off during the winter months. My hon. Friends have referred to this, and I recognise the difficulties of a carte blanche withdrawal, but I hope that the commoners, in exercising their powers, will not hesitate to be firm even if that means taking off a fair number of animals during the winter months.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned the hardiness of the Dartmoor ponies. It is true that the pure strain is very hardy, but, because of the desire to breed these animals for riding, other breeds have been introduced—I believe that they still are brought in—so that the animal on the moors is not necessarily the pure-bred, hardy breed.
The ponies which are not pure-bred are less able to withstand the harsh winters on Dartmoor. I should welcome an attempt to bring back the pure, hardy strain. That idea was dear to the heart of Mr. Philip Brown, the former chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA, who made an extensive study of the ponies and other animals of Dartmoor. It could not become a reality while there were no external controls, but I would hope to see a move in that direction if the Bill becomes law.
It will be apparent how much I welcome the provisions in the Bill for the welfare of animals. We must seize this golden opportunity. I hope that nothing will go wrong either on Second Reading or in Committee, where, sadly, the Bill passes out of our hands. I shall not readily forgive anyone who stands in the way of the Bill becoming law. I give that warning now, but I hope that it will not be necessary. I hope that the Bill will go ahead and that, at long last, we shall have a proper and sensible regulation of the varied interests on Dartmoor.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): It may be convenient for the House if I say a few words at this stage. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is commonplace for those who speak from the Back Benches to know a great deal more than the Minister who speaks from the Dispatch Box. That is certainly the case this evening. All who have participated in this debate know a great deal more about Dartmoor than the Minister who, somewhat surprisingly, has been asked to reply.
At the start of the debate, in a somewhat light-hearted vein, the former Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) muttered something from a sedentary position about my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). Those who have known my hon. Friend—even when he represented a constituency many miles away from Dartmoor—know that he has, and, I suspect, has had throughout his life, a great love and concern for Dartmoor. That was made clear in the debate in the House on 24 April 1980, when my hon. Friend explained that he had been for many years a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association.
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on representing a constituency in the county of Devon, but also on the deeply informed way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Tribute has been paid to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had as much deeply informed local knowledge as my hon. Friends, no doubt he, too, would have paid tribute to my hon. Friend.
As I have said, it is somewhat surprising that I should be standing at this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend was chosen because there are no houses on Dartmoor.

Mr. Gow: I shall explain why I am here and not my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Waldegrave). My hon. Friend has special responsibilities for the countryside and the national parks. He would have liked to have been here, not only to listen but also to speak. However, he is representing the Government at the air pollution conference in Munich.
My hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jopling) and I are concerned for the preservation of the Dartmoor commons, which constitute much of the Dartmoor national park. I pay tribute to Devon county council and to the Dartmoor national park authority for their persistent toil on the preparation of the Bill. Since the failure of the earlier Bill in 1980 they have continued their unremitting efforts to seek an acceptable legislative framework to enable the Dartmoor commons to be better managed and to improve public access. It is a difficult task to reconcile the wide range of interests involved, but it is clear that the Bill has a much wider measure of support than was enjoyed by its predecessor.
The Government have no objections to the powers being sought by Devon county council. Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for Drake addressed much of her speech to the welfare of livestock, which, particularly the welfare of the ponies on the commons, has been a


matter of great concern for many years and has received considerable publicity. The Bill is designed to improve the standard of livestock husbandry, and that is a purpose that I warmly support. As my hon. Friend said, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have both given their support to the Bill. It is true that both bodies are seeking some changes, and I hope that the Bill's sponsors will consider their views carefully.
I want to put the Bill into the context of commons legislation. It has been argued by one of the petitioners, the Country Landowners Association, that the Bill is premature and that no legislative action should be taken affecting the Dartmoor commons pending further general legislation on common land arising from the recommendations on management of and access to commons in the 1958 report of the Royal Commission. However, second stage legislation on common land—the first stage was the registration procedure provided by the Commons Registration Act 1965—is a highly complex subject. The common land forum was established in January this year under the auspices of the Countryside Commission. Its task is to reach agreement with a wide range of interests on the content of second stage legislation. I hope that it will report its findings to the commission in the latter part of next year. It may be that that report will be the precursor of another Bill on common land.
We have heard this evening of the problems that exist on the Dartmoor commons and the generally accepted need for better management. The Government believe that a solution to Dartmoor's problems should be sought now and should not be deferred until after general commons legislation has been enacted. The Government have not been a party to the prolonged discussions undertaken by my hon. Friend, the Bill's sponsors, the county council and the national park authority. Yet it is not surprising, even after all those sustained efforts, that the Bill has not been able to satisfy all interests. There are still petitioners against the Bill. It seems to the Government that it is right for the detailed arguments to be resolved in Committee when the petitioners will have an opportunity to present their case. For that reason, I wish the Bill well and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Dr. David Clark: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, for a number of reasons, to speak this evening. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on the assiduous way in which he has prepared the Bill and the eloquent way in which he presented it to the House. I am sure that that view will be shared by everyone who listened to his speech. Basically, the main thrust of the Bill is good and right, and I hope that it is given a Second Reading tonight. Obviously we have certain worries, but on the whole it is a thoroughly good Bill. These debates on environmental and animal welfare matters show the House at its best. The standard of debate is good and I always find the amount of knowledge shown by hon. Members to be quite remarkable. Tonight's debate has been a good example of that.
Another reason why I am pleased to participate in the debate is that I have non-financial interests as chairman of the Open Spaces Society, which is the oldest amenity society in Britain. It is largely responsible for all the major commons to which we have access, both in our major

cities and elsewhere. It was largely responsible for various Acts in the 1890s, as well as the important Law of Property Act 1925.
We have always argued that commons create a two-sided problem—the problem of management and the problem of recreation and access. We cannot have one without the other. That is why I am broadly in favour of the Bill, which seeks to combine the two. Of course, that does not satisfy everyone, which is an impossible thing to achieve.
I am especially pleased with clause 8. It may appear to be a technical clause, but it is connected with the severance of commons rights from land ownership. Under clause 8 it will not be possible to sever the rights of commons from any part of the common land tenure. I assure hon. Members that that is an important point, especially following the decision of the Central Electricity Generating Board and Clwyd county council several years ago.
A number of people have actually bought out the rights of commoners. They may not own the land, but they can buy the rights. Once that has happened, they can seek deregistration of the commons and the general right of the public is lost. I hope that when the secondary legislation, dangled before us by the Minister, is introduced in two or three years it will contain the principle of clause 8 as a major piece of legislation.
We also welcome clause 10. The general right of access was recommended by the 1958 Royal Commission, endorsed by the departmental committee of 1978, and as recently as this year the Countryside Commission advocated access to common land. Again, that is nothing new. Following the 1925 Act there has always been access to commons in urban areas. That has provided us with many useful examples of management and planning.
There appears to be widespread support, not only for the Bill, but for the access arrangements—not only from those from whom we would expect support, such as the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and so on, but from the Countryside Commission and the National Farmers Union. The Devon branch of the NFU recognises the problem and is prepared to face it. In the past I have said harsh words about the NFU, but I now compliment it on its progressive attitude on this matter.
I speak in sadness in saying that opposition comes from the Country Landowners Association. I hope that it clearly has the message from both sides of the House that it is trying to push things a little too far, and against opinion both in this House and outside. I hope that it will realise that its petition against general access is out of line with current thinking. I hope that it will withdraw its petition, which will not help anyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) dealt thoroughly with an important point about the law of trespass. It is incumbent upon us to declare firmly that there is no criminal law of trespass on land—there is only civil law. That meets with general approval. I am concerned that one subsection may open the door to extending the criminal law of trespass to land.
It is only recently that the Government, quite rightly, decided not to extend the criminal law of trespass for residential property to land. It is unfortunate that the Bill, although not the Government's responsibility, may provide the opening for criminal law of trespass on land. We recognise that there is sometimes a problem of trespass


on archaeological or nature sites, but that problem exists elsewhere as well, and it is tackled within the general legislative framework without too much difficulty. There is no need for the measure dealing with that matter.
I fully understand the problems of access to Dartmoor. Eight million visitors a year come to a concentrated area. I remind the House that similar problems are experienced in the Lake District national park, which has 20 million visitors a year. Since 1925 there has been access to all the commons in the southern part of the Lake District national park because those areas are under the control of the Lake District urban council. The Lake District planning board has no need to apply for these powers. I do not believe that they are necessary in this case.
The powers governing the control of disease of animals are not necessary either. They should be, and are, the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We welcome the Bill. I was encouraged by what the Minister for Housing and Construction said. I hope that I did not read too much into his words. I thought he said that he felt the Bill should be presented to the House at this time because of a particular problem. He reported that the common land forum was studying the problem and that when it reported in 15 or 16 months time the Government would look at the results and bring forward secondary legislation.
Much of the Bill provides a blueprint for general legislation. I wish the Bill well and look forward to general enabling legislation.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall not detain the House for many minutes, but I should like to associate myself with the praise that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has rightly received for his efforts. Anyone who has seen his industry and determination must be amazed by it. It is impressive to someone like myself, who is Devonshire born and bred, that someone with fewer years of acquaintance with Dartmoor can have such a great feeling for it. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that he can present his argument in that light.
My acquaintance and knowledge of Dartmoor stem not only from the fact that I have been aware of the area for most of my life but from the fact that a substantial amount of Dartmoor falls within my constituency of Teignbridge. Some of the places that members of the public most associate with Dartmoor, such as Widecombe and Hay tor, fall within my constituency. I do not wish to trespass on the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) but those parts of Dartmoor that fall within my constituency are as typical of the area as they can be.
Many points have been made about the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I shall touch on one point, not because it is an overriding matter, but because the other points have been dealt with at great length. I especially welcome the effect that the Bill will have on animal husbandry on the moor. I say that not just because of my particular interest in animal welfare, of which the House may know, but because that aspect reflects something important about the way in which farmers conduct their affairs on Dartmoor.
There has been much ill-informed criticism about the way in which Dartmoor farmers look after their stock. Coming from a farming background, even if I do not now farm I am aware of the fact that the vast majority of farmers have great concern for the animals they tend. That feeling may be based on long acquaintance—it is based on sense rather than sentimentality—but it is, for all that, a real concern. The representations that I have received from farmers leave me in no doubt that the great majority welcome the Bill's animal welfare provisions. People without an acquaintance with rural matters may not realise how important that can be.
Over-grazing of the moor leads to general deterioration. In the end, it means not just that animals will suffer misery, disease and death, but that responsible farmers will be reluctant to commit their animals to the moor. General deterioration follows. Others who use the moor do not benefit by a good example and there is a lack of monitoring by responsible farmers of those who are less responsible. There is a vicious circle in which the worse the position becomes, the worse it is bound to become. In the end, there is no regulation and animals suffer from a range of diseases—sheep scab, bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and the rest. If present conditions were allowed to continue without any regulation, that action would continue, even though it would be wrong to exaggerate it.
Once a special concern about animal welfare has been identified, the correct way of regulating it must be considered. In a sense, the Bill is returning to former conditions. Control by a system of manorial rights has disappeared. If the Bill is passed, a system of regulation by the Dartmoor Commoners' Council will replace it. That council is the correct body to tackle this type of task, because the people on the council know the commons and derive their living from it. It is difficult to think of any other way in which this matter should be regulated.
It is in no one's interests to continue the present intolerable position. Anyone with a genuine love and affection for Dartmoor would want the matter remedied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly said, it is impossible to please everyone by this Bill. A balance must be struck, and I have no doubt that that balance has been properly struck.

Mr. Steen: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank the House for its generous approach to the Bill and the warm way in which both sides of the House have received it. I especially thank the hon. Members representing Devon constituencies for their generous statements about the way in which I have worked on the Bill. I thank also my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for coming to the Chamber, because one can clearly say that there is no new housing on Dartmoor, and it is appropriate that he was selected to speak in the debate.
There is whole-hearted support for the Bill. The Committee will examine this matter carefully. I believe that nothing more needs to be said. The Bill should proceed quickly to Committee, to the other place and then back to the House on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 50

RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 50, line 6, leave out "off-peak"

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ridley: Before we were transported from consideration of the London Regional Transport Bill to the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I was about to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a few words about the amendment on concessionary fares, which came from the other place. I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but the proceedings moved a little too quickly for me. I want to make the position clear.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the London boroughs will not put in place their own scheme for concessionary fares. I think that he is jumping to conclusions. I gather that they are making good progress towards doing so. We should all like to feel that they will succeed in doing so because it would mean that the local authority function remains a local authority function. The back-up powers would not then be required. I am sure that the House hopes that they will succeed in reaching agreement although the statutory back-up scheme is there should they unfortunately fail.
The hon. Gentleman made a slight slip when he gave his figures. He said that the cost of abolishing the evening peak restriction was £10 million. It is not; it is half that figure. The £10 million represents the cost of advancing the end of the morning peak from 9.30 am to 9 am plus the cost of the evening peak. They both cost a little under £5 million on London Transport's estimate. The cost of the evening peak that their Lordships sought to make available for free travel is about £5 million.
I am happy to leave the matter in the way that another place changed the Bill, but I must point out, in all fairness, that it was said in another place—I said it during Question Time last week—that the power to alter the peak hours remains in the Bill in clause 50(7). The other place was made aware that that was the case. I told the House last week, and I repeat it now, that if under clause 50(7) LRT wished to reinstate the evening peak ban or to change the hours of the morning peak, or any other hours that are put in place of the evening peak, it may do so after consultation. LRT will not require consent from me or anyone else. It has to consult, but it has the power to make the decision. That is how the Bill left another place. The other place is content that it should be like that. I cannot say what LRT will feel like doing or how it will react to the position. LRT has the power to determine at what hours it is difficult for it to carry large numbers of elderly people because the buses are full, to determine how much it will cost, and whether it can afford the scheme within the amount of subsidy provided from the boroughs and by the Government through the annual precept.

Mr. Prescott: If I understand the Secretary of State correctly, the scheme contained in the Bill means that he could enforce a uniform scheme upon the local authorities.

As I understand it, if LRT wants to formulate a concessionary scheme, albeit reduced—let us assume that it was to take out the evening peak period—and it was agreed between the local authorities and uniformly implemented, that would be acceptable to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: That is not quite right. The London boroughs may agree on a scheme, ask LRT to implement it and pay LRT the cost per pass that they issue. The only power that remains with LRT, as the Bill now stands, is that it may, after consultation, alter the hours. It can alter the morning peak or re-introduce the evening peak. It can do so for operational reasons—because the buses are full—or if it thinks it right. LRT has to consult first, but none of us in the House, or whoever may be in my shoes, has the power to stop LRT. I want to make the position clear, as their Lordships changed the Bill and as the Government recommended the Bill should remain if the House approves.

Mr. Prescott: I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State, but this is an important point. As the Bill stands, if the Secretary of State enforces the scheme because there is no agreement between the local authorities, he has no leeway to change the scheme embodied in the Bill. After the amendment in another place, all the peak times would be free, but if LRT changed the hours and said that the concession no longer applied to the evening peak period, the Secretary of State would have two schemes. One would be the reduced scheme which would be cheaper and not cover the evening peak period about which, presumably, LRT could reach agreement, and the other would be the more expensive scheme which is the wider one that the Secretary of State is talking about. Do we envisage a two-type scheme? If the local authorities do not reach agreement they face the possibility that the Secretary of State will enforce a more expensive but better system on the pensioners. That will presumably force the local authorities to reach an understanding with LRT to achieve a reduced and cheaper scheme which will be worse for the pensioners.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to make it clear that that is not quite right. As the Bill is drafted, and if the boroughs do not agree a scheme, I will implement the powers contained in the Bill to introduce the statutory scheme, which will be free transport for old-age pensioners on bus and tube from 9.30 am until 1 am the next morning. That will come into existence and be the starting position after the GLC is out of the picture.
It is possible that LRT will say that 9.30 am is the wrong time. It may suggest 9.45 am or 9.15 am. I do not know. It might also say that there should be an evening peak during which the bus passes will not be valid. We do not know what times LRT will say. LRT has power to do that as the Bill now stands, and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would have the power to stop it. It would be for LRT to make the decision because the reason that there has always been concessionary travel for old people when buses are not running full—off the peaks—is that it costs little for old people to fill the seats. We all welcome the fact that they should. That is a different concept from the rush hour when the buses are packed. Then if more people are put on the buses extra buses will be needed and that will lead to more congestion.
I am not expressing any views about the matter; I am trying to explain the position. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment, he was fully aware of what the results would be. I am describing the precise nature of the statute as it now stands. I shall be delighted if it proves possible for LRT to carry pensioners throughout the day. The problem for LRT will be to decide whether the operational requirements of the system make it possible for it to do that. There is evidence that the evening peak has been decreasing and broadening which means that it might be easier for LRT to do so.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I was going to intervene to say how satisfied we all were that what the Opposition and pensioners have striven so long for had been achieved. A tribute must be paid to pensioners for their persistence and dedication in trying to obtain what they want.
However, it seems to me, from listening to the last five minutes' worth of the Secretary of State's remarks that he has re-erected a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners. He is putting forward the same arguments as were put forward in Committee. Here, we have in the Bill from the Lords a clause that restores the position virtually to what it was before the London Regional Transport Bill came in.

Mrs. Chalker: It does not.

9 pm

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it almost does, except for the fact that the Secretary of State has been at great pains to underline the fact that at any time LRT could say, "No. We shall vary the off-peak hours from those set out in the Bill." Surely that is like wielding a sword of Damocles above the heads of pensioners.
What notice will be given of any variations? Will they be seasonal variations, with one period lasting from January to March and another between March and the end of the summer? What will happen, for example, when there is an influx of tourists from abroad? They are all welcome to come here but they use London Transport and create an extra load upon the system. Will that mean that LRT will be forced to say to pensioners, "Sorry, mate, you will not be able to travel under the same set of circumstances as those set out in the Bill."?
The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he has made no attempt to explain. We are still—I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are with me in this—confused about the matter. Will the Secretary of State please explain the position to us, especially in view of the pressure over the past few months that has resulted in a change of policy by the Government and has restored to pensioners the idea that they will be able to have free bus passes and travel with reasonable freedom on London Transport?
The Secretary of State has entered a caveat at this late hour suggesting that the Bill says something but that LRT will be able to vary it. There is nothing, as the Secretary of State has just said, that either he as Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend, if he were Secretary of State, would be able to do about it. The Secretary of State should give us a better explanation.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady should read the Bill. I shall quote clause 50(7). It says:

The daytime, evening or late-night off-peak period for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above may be altered from time to time by London Regional Transport by notice published in such manner as they think fit, specifying the new period or periods and the effective date of the alteration.
That has been in the Bill since it was published. It was not challenged in Committee, on Report or in another place. When Lord Pitt moved the amendment in another place he accepted that that power remained in the Bill.
I simply want to ensure that there is no misconception or misunderstanding about what Parliament has done to the Bill. Parliament has left those words in the Bill, and they cannot be taken out now. I should not want anyone to think that he had been cheated or misled. Those words remain in the Bill and there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is trying to make this important point clear to us. We are making progress towards understanding it. The subsection has been in the Bill since it was introduced, but the argument has always been as to whether a statutorily enforced system and powers could be in the Bill because no one trusted the authorities to reach a uniform scheme. That issue constantly plagued the Committee, and has continued to trouble us on Report and in another place.
The purpose of statutory enforcement—it was, indeed demanded by the pensioners—was to secure a guarantee that pensioners should keep the service because the Secretary of State was taking over London Transport. In those circumstances, pensioners wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. He left us in no doubt when he brought in the clause introducing a reserve scheme for statutory enforcement. As he pointed out, it was the first one of its kind in the country. No doubt it created a precedent for the metropolitan areas, but we shall leave that question for another time.
Although the scheme was the first of its kind, the only argument that was put forward by the Secretary of Slate as to why it was introduced was that the Opposition had made a clamour and caused much upset among pensioners, who feared that they would lose their free travel. That was the basis of the argument. Therefore, if we got a statutorily enforced scheme, we would achieve what people were looking for—a promise, written into legislation, that a statutorily enforced scheme would be implemented if, and only if, the local authorities refused to agree to a uniform scheme.
The Secretary of State told us that negotiations are well under way towards achieving that objective. I do not know whether the local authorities involved were working on the Secretary of State's scheme of deleting the words "evening off-peak". Local authorities would consider the new maximum that could be enforced on them and could buy the LRT cheaper package, not including the off-peak period. Presumably, the negotiations would be about that. The Secretary of State's statement makes it clear that it is a much wider game, with very different hours of coverage.
We must be agreed upon this. It is true that subsection (7) has been in the Bill from the start. It makes it clear that LRT can make a change. It would look for a sign from the Secretary of State of what his thinking was. It would have been identified in the statutory scheme. LRT would enter into negotiations with the local authorities. I have put this point to the Secretary of State before. It is reasonable to


assume that the Labour boroughs will be more likely to go for the maximum scheme but the Tory boroughs will go for the minimum scheme.

Mr. Ridley: Will they?

Mr. Prescott: There is a general pattern, and I shall not argue much about that.

Mr. Ridley: The Labour boroughs will be rate-capped.

Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State has introduced the fact that the Labour boroughs will be rate-capped. Now we know what this is about. It is the same as with the Diala-Ride schemes. Some local authorities that put their money towards such schemes are presently penalised for over expenditure on schemes such as Dial-a-Ride.
Therefore, the Labour authorities will not be able to buy the expensive package, not because they have no desire to do so, but because they will not have the resources to do so, as they will have been rate-capped. However, let us assume that they throw the lesser LRT scheme out and stick to the pensioner's free pass. If one Labour borough out of the 32 London boroughs sticks out and refuses to accept the lesser scheme, presumably the Secretary of State will have to enforce the whole scheme under the Bill, and nothing less. That is what the amendments mean. If authorities are rate-capped, they will turn round to the Secretary of State and say, "If you are forcing a statutory obligation on us, you had better pay for it because it is your scheme." We went through all those arguments in Committee. We can see the mess that we shall get into.
The Secretary of State has no means of changing the hours or times. The only flexibility in the system remains in the clause, with the power of LRT to negotiate with the local authorities. I am sorry to say that, because I was a little more persuaded earlier by the Minister, when it looked as if the Government had accepted democracy. The Minister of State referred to that, but I am more suspicious of the Secretary of State. We have learnt more from his throwaway line than from his statements. Rate-capping will have an effect. My gamble is—it is almost a prediction—that London pensioners, having fought the battle by means of democratic machinery both here and in the other place, protesting and demonstrating to everybody, will now be robbed of their democratic right to retain the pension system.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I ask the leave of the House to speak once.
I should like to add something to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The real problem is that it is now possible for the scheme to be worsened by an authority that is accountable to no one. That is the important thing. I do not know why the Secretary of State makes such a virtue of the fact—he repeated it several times—that he has no power to intervene in a decision by LRT in respect of reducing the hours. LRT people may take it into their heads to reduce the available hours considerably. They may want to cut services and the number of their personnel. They may see a reduction of hours in the concession to pensioners as a vehicle for reducing services and the number of personnel.
I do not know why the Secretary of State made a virtue of the fact that he did not have such a power. I would

sooner that he rather than London Regional Transport made the decision because he is accountable. He can be questioned by the representatives of those pensioners and called to account for his actions. No one can call LRT to account. It can vary the provisions as it wishes, and give whatever notice seems appropriate to it. LRT is not accountable. No one can say to LRT, "Don't be rough. Let's have warning in advance."
The prophecy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will probably be fulfilled. I shall be surprised if, before the new arrangements hve been in operation for long, LRT does not decide to worsen the scheme. I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not regret that he will be unable to do anything about that.
The Secretary of State can say that the provision has always been in the Bill and that everyone knows about it, but when LRT first makes a cut in the value and availability of the concession, millions of pensioners will come screaming to him. No doubt he will shrug his shoulders and say, "There is no good talking to me about it because I have not done this. LRT did it and you cannot talk to LRT because you have no representation." LRT's lack of accountability makes it probable that it will worsen the conditions, and the worst of it is that it cannot be taken to task for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.

New Clause

PENALTY FARES

Lords amendment: No. 26, after clause 52 insert the following new Clause—
 .—(1) This section and the three next following sections have effect in relation to—
(a) travel on a bus service to which this section applies; and
(b) travel on a train service to which this section applies; if an order under section (Operation of the penalty fares provisions) of this Act is for the time being in force with respect to the service in question.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, if at any time during his journey on any bus service to which this section applies on which fare tickets are issued in return for fares paid by persons travelling on that service a person so travelling fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if a person travels on any such bus service on which fare tickets are not so issued without paying the fare (if any) properly payable for his journey on that service, or for any part of his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(4) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare—
(a) in a case within subsection (2) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket before the time when he was required to produce such a ticket;
(b) in a case within subsection (3) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to pay the fare in question before the time when he was found to have failed to pay it.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, if at any time during his journey on any train service to which this section applies a person travelling on that service fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.

(6) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare by virtue of subsection (5) above if he had no reasonable opportunity to


obtain any necessary fare ticket, or a deferred fare authority applicable to his journey or to any relevant part of his journey, at the time when he started to travel.

(7) A penalty fare payable by any person under this section in respect of any journey shall be an amount equal to—

(a) the minimum penalty; or
(b) the default fare for the journey multiplied by the multiplier;
whichever is the greater; and any such penalty fare shall be payable to the person providing the service in question within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day following the date on which the journey was completed.

(8) In subsection (7) above—
(a) "the minimum penalty" means or such other (lower or higher) sum as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe; and
(b) "the multiplier" means ten or such other (lower or higher) figure as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(9) In any case within subsection (2) or (5) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is—
(a) where the whole of the distance travelled on that journey was not covered by any fare ticket produced by the person in question or by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel, an amount equal to the full fare for the whole of that distance;
(b) where any (but not the whole) of the distance so travelled was not so covered, an amount equal to the full fare for that part of that distance;
(c) where the whole or any part of the distance so travelled was covered by a fare ticket so produced showing payment of a fare appropriate in the case of another category of traveller but lower than the fare properly payable by the person in question for that journey or for the relevant part of that journey, an amount equal to the difference between the fare shown on the ticket and the full fare for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance; and
(d) where both paragraphs (b) and (c) above apply, the aggregate of the amounts applicable under each of those paragraphs.

(10) In any case within subsection (3) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is an amount determined by applying subsection (9) above, taking references (however expressed) to a fare ticket produced by the person in question and the fare shown on any such ticket as references to a fare paid by that person.

(11) In this section "full fare" means, in relation to the whole or any part of the distance travelled by any person on a journey on any bus or train service to which this section applies, the single ordinary fare payable by an adult for travelling on that service for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance on a journey corresponding to the one actually taken (but treated, where it covers part only of the distance travelled on that journey, and also where the whole of the distance so travelled formed part of a journey made partly by way of another service, as a separate journey).

(12) The liability of any person under this section to pay a penalty fare in respect of any journey is subject to section (Exclusion of double liability) of this Act."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30.

Mrs. Chalker: These five clauses were introduced as Government amendments, following representations in another place that action should be taken to reduce the current level of fraud by the introduction of penalty fares. Fare evasion on London Transport is a severe problem. Every effort has been made to reduce its effects by normal means, but in 1983 the total loss from fraud, mostly in the form of fare dodging, was £25 million. That represents

about a 5 per cent. loss of revenue, and effectively adds 6 per cent. to the fares which would otherwise have to be paid.
There is a further important consideration. It is well known that the Government's aim is to ensure that LRT reduces its costs, improves its efficiency and generally provides better value for money. London transport is already in the process of introducing automated fares collection and ticket issue. When the new underground ticketing system is fully operational there will be automatic gates at central stations and open barriers at surbaban stations. It does not take much imagination to recognise the opportunities that the new system would afford to the determined fare dodger unless steps are taken to impose an appropriate penalty if the proper fare is not paid. Without such measures it would be impossible to achieve the savings that we want in this area, which will benefit travellers and ratepayers alike.
9.15 pm
Although there are sound reasons for introducing the measures, the Government have been conscious of another important consideration—the need to protect the rights of the individual. Therefore, the measures include several safeguards for travellers, and improvements in this respect were made during consideration of the clauses in another place. It is important to place on record at the outset the fact that the measures do not represent an on-the-spot: fine. As part of the conditions of travelling on LRT services, travellers will be liable to a surcharge or penalty fare if they do not pay the proper fare.
What is involved is not the creation of a new criminal offence, with the fine being exacted outside normal court procedures. It is simply the creation of a new civil liability. Although it will be possible for the traveller to pay the surcharge on the spot, he will have 21 days in which to pay. If he chooses not to pay, LRT's redress for the recovery of the penalty fare lies only in a civil action in the county courts. The new conditions will be displayed prominently at stations, on trains and on buses to ensure that travellers are fully aware of their liabilities. In addition, an undertaking was given in another place that the notice issued to someone liable to a penalty fare will contain information as to his rights and obligations, and that the form of the notice will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State.
My second point—I apologise for taking a long time, but the measures are new to the House and I should discuss them in detail—is that the measures ensure that travellers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if they had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a ticket. In this context we have given an undertaking, which I am happy to repeat now, that the measures will not be introduced on the underground until we are satisfied that appropriate equipment is in place to ensure that a reasonable opportunity exists to obtain an appropriate ticket or authority to travel.
The measures create a new civil liability for nonpayment of the proper fare. They will apply to those who travel with intent to avoid payment and who will remain liable, if they do not pay the penalty fare, to prosecution. They will also apply to those who override with every intention of paying. The Government are aware that extending sanctions into new areas almost inevitably restricts the freedoms of some innocent people. We have considered that aspect carefully, but we can see no


alternative to the approach embodied in the clauses if the provisions are to be effective in their purpose, which is to help to eradicate the high level of fraudulent travel on London's public transport.
I shall say a few words about how the system will work. The first new clause, in amendment No. 26, provides that if a person does not pay the proper fare for the whole or any part of his journey he will be liable to a penalty fare of either £5 or 10 times the amount of the unpaid fare, whichever is the greater. There will be no liability to a penalty fare if the traveller had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a fare ticket for the journey in question. The clause also defines the terms and method of calculation for a penalty fare.
The second new clause, in amendment No. 27, provides that the penalty fares system will apply on all LRT bus and train services, on the services of any subsidiary of LRT, and on the services of any person operating under agreement with LRT, where the agreement states that the penalty fares provisions are to apply. That is a section 3(2) agreement. The clause also sets out definitions of terms used concerning fares, tickets, journeys, and so on.
The third new clause, amendment No. 28, places a duty on LRT to ensure that warning notices about liability for penalty fares and about the minimum amount are displayed at every station, in every train and on every deck of every bus. Any order varying the penalty fare will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
The fourth new clause, amendment No. 29, provides that a traveller will not have a double liability for an offence relating to fares. If he is liable for a penalty fare, no proceedings can be brought within a period of 21 days. Any liability to prosecution will be discharged by payment of the penalty fare. On the other hand, if proceedings are brought after the 21-day period against a person of offences related to non-payment of fares, he will not be liable to pay the penalty fare.
The final new clause, amendment No. 30, provides for the Secretary of State to bring the penalty fares provisions into effect by order at the request of LRT for bus and train services separately. The clause also sets out provisions relating to revocation of the orders and the suspension of similar provisions in local Acts which appear to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary when the new provisions are brought into effect.
As I mentioned earlier, the clauses have been inserted specifically at the request of another place where they received all-party support. Some improvements were made during their passage but I am happy to repeat an assurance that was given in another place that if further improvements can be identified before the provisions come into effect, we shall be prepared to implement them in amending legislation.
While those measures may be new to London they are not new to other areas which have their own schemes. There are schemes in Manchester, Tyne and Wear and Cardiff, and they are used in those areas. Therefore, although they are not common and new to the House, because they have come up—I think I am right in saying—under local provisions, another place thought that they were extremely worthwhile, indeed necessary, to make the whole business of fare-dodging a thing of the

past. I commend the new clauses to the House and hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Mr. Snape: I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that to make such a drastic change and to tack it on to the end of a 66-clause Bill which took up a considerable proportion of three months in Committee is not a particularly satisfactory procedure. This detailed series of serious clauses has been added on to the Bill only after it disappeared to the other place and it is unsatisfactory for the Government to adopt such a procedure. Had this succession of clauses appeared in the Bill originally, we could have had a fairly full and comprehensive debate in Committee on the whole issue of the principle of the levying of fines and the quasi-judicial role which those responsible for the checking of tickets will adopt under these clauses. However, we have had no such opportunity.
I must start by referring to something that the Minister said towards the close of her speech. She talked about the powers being available in other parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge—I stress that because I have not been directly involved in those areas—neither Greater Manchester nor Tyne and Wear has made wide use of those powers since they were adopted. I shall come back to why I believe that the powers should not be widely used.
I remind the Minister that from a reply to me in an earlier debate to some questions about some other matters which do not concern us on these new clauses I understood that she was to withdraw certain things that she said at that time, and she has not yet done so. I hope that she will not have to withdraw two separate matters as a result of the brief that she has had before her tonight. I repeat that I do not know of any widespread use of the power in other parts of the country. It would be helpful if the Minister detailed to the House where and when these powers have been used.
We are equally concerned about fraudulent travel. The Government, after all, say time and again that the provision of public passenger transport in the City is uneconomic, so we have no interest in defending those who seek to travel fraudulently. I observe no examples of proof that this series of amendments which the other place has seen fit to adopt is necessary. It is easy for the Minister to say that the Government desire to save £25 million a year. Forgive my cynicism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but fare evasion, by its nature, is difficult to prove. It is remarkable that the Minister should come to the House and say that £25 million revenue is being lost by London Transport and that, for that reason, these clauses should be accepted undebated, despite our comprehensive procedures.
The Minister said that the clauses would not be needed until a change had been instituted in the system of ticket issue and collection on London Transport, particularly on the underground. She mentioned the necessity for gates at stations in the central area and referred to open barriers in other parts of the system. There is a long way to go before we arrive at that stage. Given the amount of money that it would be necessary to spend to arrive at what is, to the Minister, that happy position and the amount of time that it would take for London Transport to spend that money and thus effect these so-called "improvements", there is surely plenty of time, when these matters have been completed, for the introduction of such clauses after adequate debate in the House. I am a daily traveller on the


underground system, and I think that there is a long way to go before we arrive at the happy position outlined by the Minister.
I appreciate at the outset that these bright ideas—and there are reasonable assumptions behind them—normally emanate from the management of concerns such as London Transport at 55 Broadway. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on inadvertently referring to the Secretary of State's new headquarters, after the Bill becomes law, as 55 Marsham street, but I think that that is the perfect description of the role that he will adopt as Secretary of State and as the supremo of London transport. Some bright boy at 55 Broadway has decided to put forward the figure of £25 million as the amount resulting from evasion by passengers who do not purchase a ticket or who purchase a ticket for a station short of their destination. Although it has been said that there will not be on-the-spot fines, there is some on-the-spot fining in the legislation. If the passenger so agrees, he can pay a fine on the spot. That provision, which is fairly odious to us, exists. Some of us use London Transport daily, in particularly the underground system, unlike the Secretary of State or any other Minister in the Department of Transport.

Mrs. Chalker: That is not true.

Mr. Snape: The Minister says that that is not true. She is a little touchy tonight. She would be the first to concede that, like every other Minister, she has a car and a chauffeur who is allocated to her. Fairly recently she was photographed riding to work on a bicycle. That is a very healthy pursuit, although perhaps not one that should be debated now. By coincidence, the day that she decided to ride her bike to work, London Transport's employees were on strike. Perhaps it is a double coincidence that on the day that she forsook her chauffeur-driven car and biked to work a photographer was present from the Fleet street newspapers.
I am sure that the Minister usually rides to work in that state-provided chauffeur-driven car, just as I would do—I shall be quite open about it—if I were in that position. The Parliamentary Private Secretary seems to fulfil a valuable function in racing between the Front Bench and the Government's advisers. I am sure that if she had the opportunity she would ride to work on a bike, but more probably would travel in a chauffeur-driven car.
9.30 pm
Therefore, I do not accept that Ministers, particularly in this Government, are well qualified to work out the best way to pursue fare dodgers. I say that because they lack experience of the public transport for which they are responsible—[Interruption.] It would be very difficult to imagine the Secretary of State riding to work by tube without a ticket. If he ever had to drag his languid way to Marsham street by public transport, one of his faithful civil servants would no doubt be assigned the odious task of buying his ticket. So we need no comments or hand waving from the right hon. Gentleman when it comes to fare dodging. He is an obvious public transport dodger in the first place.
If these provisions are implemented, those responsible for pursuing people who travel without tickets will probably have an onerous task. It would be a fairly daunting prospect to have to walk through a train on a Saturday evening on some of our tube lines, demanding

to look at the tickets of those who have purchased them, let alone imposing on-the-spot fines or interrogating those who are fare dodging. Can the Minister tell us what consultation has taken place between her Department, London Transport and the trade unions responsible for organising those who will have that job if we accept what the Minister so blandly described as a fairly minor alteration to the existing procedures? I should like to see the Secretary of State walk through a Piccadilly line train near King's Cross at about 11.20 pm on a Saturday night, just after closing time, demanding that passengers produce their tickets. I should have thought that there would be a dramatic confrontation, although, given his size, I might put my money on the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mikardo: What proportion of those found without tickets would readily give their right names and addresses so that they could be the defendants in a civil action?

Mr. Snape: As usual, my hon. Friend illustrates the nub of the problem. He should address his comment, perhaps through me, to the Minister. There is not much point in asking the Secretary of State about such matters. Traditionally, he has left the more difficult, nasty and occasionally squalid provisions to the Minister of State. She has learnt to take that job on board. At the risk of further prejudicing her glittering career, I admit that normally she does that well, although she has not done too well in relation to the current group of amendments.
Those of us who use the London underground system know that it is often impossible to purchase a ticket before commencing a journey. The Minister says that machines will be installed at every station so that if it is impossible to purchase a ticket one can obtain authority to travel. I presume that that will be free of charge, although we have not yet gone into the details.
Such a machine would be useful today. I am a regular traveller on the last District line train from Westminster, which leaves at 12.18. I cannot remember the last time that I was able to purchase a ticket at Westminster station. I am a law-abiding citizen. If I were challenged for having boarded the train without a ticket, I would readily cooperate and point out that it was impossible to purchase a ticket. Others on that last train might not be so cooperative. I am referring to the present system, without the fancy machines which the Minister of State so blithely promises.
The Secretary of State says that once he dons his peaked cap and takes over as supremo things will change, but it is impossible to purchase a ticket late at night at some stations. That is because the system is dependent on overtime. If no one is available to issue a ticket, people have to ride without one.
I travel from Nine Elms in the morning, and normally only one ticket window is operative. This morning, for example, at 9.20, knowing that we were to discuss this bright new idea——

Mr. Dicks: I was travelling earlier than that.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that he was out earlier than 9.20, but he arrived here seven hours later than me. I cannot imagine which train he travels on from Hayes and Harlington, but I hope that LRT will improve the service.
At 9.20 this morning I made a point of counting the people queueing for a ticket. I counted 42. Three or four


of the people, younger and fitter than I, got fed up with waiting and hopped over the barrier to catch the train. If they had waited another 15 minutes queueing for a tickets their jobs might have been prejudiced—and jobs are precious these days. Should the finger be pointed at them for travelling on the tube without a ticket? It costs 80p from Nine Elms to the centre of London, and there is at that station one 80p ticket machine, though it is frequently out of order.
Regular daily travellers on London's underground system will be menaced by this legislation. The fare dodger and Saturday night drunk—the latter being the type who is likely to take a swing at anybody challenging him and asking him from where he came or at what station he bought a ticket—will not be the hardest hit. The Minister should wait until the system has been properly overhauled before introducing proposals of this type. When the stations have been properly staffed or when new automatic collecting and issuing machines have been installed, such changes could then be introduced. We are light years away from having such a mechanised system, given even the enlightened investment policies of the GLC.
If the Minister of State believes that her right hon. Friend, the latter-day Will Hay seated beside her, the station master of the future, will provide millions of pounds for sophisticated and expensive ticket machines at every station throughout the London underground system, the world in which she lives is unknown to my hon. Friends and me.
Some bright boy came up with this idea, which was leaked comprehensively to The Standard a few weeks ago, when, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman was quoted. He likes to have his name in the newspapers as being a Secretary of State who is doing something. The fact that he is not strongly behind what he is doing and is even less behind what he is saying at the time will not, he hopes, be noticed until after that day's editions of the papers are out.
The right hon. Gentleman's ideas as embodied in the amendment are as daft as most of the ideas that emanate from him. In addition to withdrawing certain remarks that she made about an earlier debate, I hope that the Minister of State will provide some facts to back up the preposterous proposals in this series of amendments, instead of making only unprovable assertions.

Mr. Dobson: We need to look further afield to discover why there is so much fare evasion on London Transport and on public transport in general. The extent of fare evasion, vandalism and violence in London has progressively increased in proportion to the number of staff laid off. In other words, to achieve a system which is safe for passengers, all of whom pay fares, the system must be staffed adequately with men and women.
The greater the introduction of automatic equipment, the greater the level of evasion, vandalism and personal violence against passengers and the remaining staff. The travelling public need a safe ride in decent rolling stock for reasonable fares.
If they get those things, they will be, for a start, more likely to pay their fares anyway.
The only way to make sure that we crack down on the increase in fare evasion is to get more human beings

involved. The Minister may not be happy with my next conclusion, but I do not think that the proposed involvement of human beings that she is accepting in these amendments is the way to go about it. We need a heavy level of staffing on the underground system if that system is to remain safe and if people are to be expected to pay their fares. Instead, we are seeing an effort by a few smartypants people who probably never travel on London Transport from one year to the next, and who are suggesting a flippant, ill-considered way to deal with this important problem.
9.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that, if the people who are suggesting this had travelled on London Transport and looked at the practicalities of stopping people on Saturday night when they are drunk, or on the Monday morning, when on certain lines they are surly, and demanding of them that they accept liability and even pay a fine there and then, they would have seen clearly that this suggestion has not the faintest connection with reality. Already, far too many of the limited staff of London Transport who have to face the public have to suffer violence from difficult passengers. We have to come up with a system that provides for them an adequate protection when they are going about their jobs. This daft solution that the House of Lords has typically come up with exposes such people to further opportunities for being violently dealt with by obstreperous members of the public.
I suspect that we shall not manage to vote down this proposition, but I believe, not just on behalf of those who staff London Transport and who face many difficulties, but from the point of view of the travelling public, that we need to look at how we provide a decent, safe transport system safe for both passengers and staff. We can then move from that to see how we further reduce the level of fare evasion. I am convinced that if we had the necessary staffing levels on the stations, on the buses and on the tubes trains, the level of fare evasion would automatically fall without any gimmickry from the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. The proposition before us tonight is trivial, ill-thought-out, and likely to do more harm than good.

Mr. Spearing: In previous debates on this Bill, the Minister, the Secretary of State and any casual reader may have thought that I have been defending the status quo and that I believe that the GLC and London Transport are an ideal organisation, working in their wonderful mutual harness to provide transport for people in London. That would not be true. Over the years, I have been constructively critical of the management at 55 Broadway and will continue to be so, irrespective of who is in government or who is in the seat at Marsham street. Therefore, what I have to say has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with good public administration.
This scheme has been the aim of 55 Broadway for a number of years. Just over 10 years ago, the then chairman of London Transport attempted to put a provision such as this in one of the regular private Bills coming before the House—I think that it was a GLC (General Powers) Bill. The result was that a meeting of London Labour Members with the said chairman led to bitter comments and remarks, there was a disinclination of Labour Members to support it, and the proposal fell. At that time


I was in possession of a season ticket, which was provided by the authorities of the House and which took me to my home. I did not have the excellent rail and travel pass which is now provided. My constituency was on the same underground line, but two stations further on from my home station. My frequent practice was to use my season ticket to take me to my constituency. I would leave the train two stations on from where the ticket took me and pay the excess fare. Under the proposals that are now being made by those at No. 55 Broadway, I can be fined whenever I travel on my lawful business from the House to my constituency and remain on the train beyond my home station.
I am not sure whether the six pages of complicated legislation that we have before us would put any season ticket holder in the same position but I suspect that they might. I suspect that they would give that option. I am not asking the Minister to say whether they would because they might not. Even if they would not provide that option, I am suggesting that the proposals are not necessarily well thought-out. They are impractical and they are liable to give a great deal of trouble. I am not sure that they are treating either House with the respect that any Government should show.
Any ticket-fine system must be based upon the system of ticketing that is envisaged or in practice. London Transport is a past master in producing plans for electronic ticketing which later bite the dust because they are found to be too expensve, impractical or not capable of working. One has only to travel on the late but not lamented DMS buses to see the extraordinary amount of turnstile equipment that was never used. I recall, in my capacity within the GLC, and subsequently, when reading minutes of the London Transport committee of the council, that there has been plan after plan for the installation of sophisticated ticketing machines by London Transport with contracts with those who supply and manufacture expensive electronic equipment. London Transport at 55 Broadway is electronic-gadget-mad and it will provide any form of guarantee that any Secretary of State wants.
We must remember that the ticketing system might well go beyond London Transport. We have talked about the need to integrate British Rail services with those of London Transport and, ideally, their ticketing systems should have some compatibility. I am not suggesting that they should be the same, because both authorities provide different sorts of service. There have been conversations, investigations, memoranda and meetings galore over the past three or four years on this topic and the bureaucracies of both places have seemed not to be especially practical. Unless future ticketing arrangements between British Rail and London Transport are clear and pilot schemes have been shown to work, the future ticket regime of the system cannot be said to be clear and settled.
I should be more impressed with the proposals if the attitude of London Transport to current fare evasion were rather more practical than it clearly is. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has spoken about the arrangements on our local underground system. Any Londoner is able to speak about the extent to which passengers go past the barrier at the end of their journey and pay a notional or claimed sum to the ticket collector. It is wrong and bad that no receipts are given. That appears to be a major fault in the existing system. In addition, many booking offices are not manned. Perhaps the offices should not necessarily be manned at times when there are

only a few passengers. [t might cost more to pay the booking clerk than not to collect the money that he would take. I accept that, but there has been no facility for taking a journey of origin ticket, for example. Lads are given every encouragement to vault over the bars, and not only when there is no ticket collector. At the end of pop concerts or football matches, or at closing time, there may be a long queue for the single booking office and there is every temptation to vault over the barrier. The hon. Lady should be much more careful about taking such matters on board, particularly at this stage.
It is clear that, in the past few years, London Transport has been very worried about fare evasion. It has made claims about the millions of pounds that are lost through fare evasion, and I believe that those claims have been accepted at county hall. London Transport has put large numbers of ticket inspectors on the trains. We ought to know whether that policy has worked. At present, we do not know. When people are apprehended, especially during the day, London Transport is very concerned. We should know what justification there is for that concern.
This is a national Parliament, but we are legislating on a London matter and the Londoners who will use the services wish to feel confident about travelling late at night. London Transport has been very inefficient about late-night violence. There were some serious incidents at Neasden five or six years ago which were due to lack of action on reported difficulties. Not long ago, the District line trains were withdrawn after 10 o'clock east of Whitechapel. The Newham constituencies, Barking and the line all the way to Upminster were affected because the crews did not believe that they had sufficient protection. The management was grossly inefficient about starting the trains running again, and large numbers of people were inconvenienced. I do not blame the crews. They were only looking after their own well-being. However, I do not believe that their Lordships have thought up six pages of legislation out of the air. The amendments smell to me of No. 55 Broadway. If there were a case for the amendments, they should not be tacked by the Lords on to a Bill which is about what might be said to be more important and wider matters, so that there can be no proper discussion in Committee in this place.
It would be inappropriate for me to divide the House on the amendments, but I may exercise my right to shout no once to the Question, so that it will have to be negatived. Like most of those who use London Transport regularly, I feel strongly about the matter. The right hon. Lady has been somewhat casual in introducing the amendments. Six pages of legislation on offences of this nature will give lawyers much trouble. I do not see why six pages are necessary. If they are, I do not believe that the practical working of the system has been considered carefully enough.

Mrs. Chalker: Before I reply on the amendment, I shall tell the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) something that I conveyed to him as soon as I understood that I had made an error when talking about the amendments grouped with amendment No. 17. We were discussing the retrospective power of the traffic commissioners to amend a picking-up or setting-down place.
I was right in saying that the traffic commissioners will have power to alter an existing licence, but the new power in the Bill, as in the Lords amendment which we were


discussing, does not refer to picking-up and setting-down points that have already been made. However, the hon. Gentleman's concern is slightly different, as I have been advised since that part of our debate. The gap of two months which concerned the hon. Gentleman will not cause the problem about which he was worried, because, on safety grounds, the Metropolitan police have said that they will not be prepared to allow anyone to slip through the loophole that the hon. Gentleman felt might exist. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to put the matter right before we went any further with our deliberations.
When the hon. Gentleman began his remarks on the amendment, he said that it was being introduced at a late stage and in an unsatisfactory manner. I have considerable sympathy with that, but the other place——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the London Regional Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lang]

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mrs. Chalker: I share a little of the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that the amendment has come about in an unsatisfactory way. However, great concern has been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—although, perhaps, rather more on the Government Benches—about fraud on London transport. That concern was raised many, many times in another place. On reflection, it may be right for another place to come forward, even at this late stage, with amendments introducing a penalty fares scheme. The amendments have the support of all parties in another place. Therefore, I was a little surprised by some of the comments from Opposition Members, but I suppose that I should not be surprised at anything coming from the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me on where the other penalty fare schemes were operating. No other area is comparable with London, which has British Rail, Underground and bus systems. But for buses alone, the Greater Manchester county council, in the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Act 1980 has a scheme where, if an inspector finds a passenger travelling without a valid ticket, he issues an excess fares notice. That inspector has no discretion whether or not to issue that notice. The passenger is not required to pay on the spot, but is allowed 21 days to pay the excess fare, which is set at a penalty level. After 21 days the authority can prosecute, as is proposed in the amendment.
Tyne and Wear PTE has a non-statutory scheme for standard fare, started in 1979. I understand that it is now running at about £3, which is charged for passengers on buses and the metro found to be travelling without a valid ticket. The concept is that this is the standard fare, but all those who behave themselves pay the lesser fare; in other words, they have a discount. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) can confirm that I have that just about right. I hope that everyone pays the discount fare rather than the penalty fare.
Cardiff and Merseyside have introduced penalty fares at a modest level of premium, under authority from the traffic commissioners who authorise what is now known

as an unsubsidised fare. As we all know, BR relies on ticket inspectors to take the names and addresses of those without valid tickets, who are then prosecuted. Obviously, in certain cases, people seek to mislead.
The House is concerned to know what is wrong with the current system and why we should introduce penalty fares. Over the years, substantial efforts have been made to reduce the losses through fare evasion. However, the scope for reducing them further, even if there were to be a vast increase in staff, is limited and would not be cost effective. The system is demanding and places a considerable burden on the courts. We should heed that point. We need to impose a much clearer obligation on the traveller to pay the proper fare or obtain the correct ticket matched by the introduction of Underground equipment to ensure that every reasonable opportunity for doing so is taken. If the traveller does not carry that through, he should become liable for a surcharge or a penalty fare.
Savings are to be made from the modern equipment that is now available but was not available 10 years ago. There is a great deal more expertise in the use of this equipment because of experience abroad. I hope that we can reduce the awful level of fare evasion on London Transport. Until we do, those of us who pay our fares—admittedly, as has been said, at the end of the journey when the blackboard is up, as it was the other night at Westminster tube station——

Mr. Snape: Where was the car?

Mrs. Chalker: I was travelling by tube, as I usually do. I do not always use the car. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refuse any lift that I offer him, I shall understand that he prefers to walk in the middle of the night or from inaccessible places.
All fare-paying passengers know that it is in their interest for us to have a proper system of combating fraud and the loss of fares by those who seek to evade the system. I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East agrees with that point, despite what he said at the beginning of his remarks.

Mr. Snape: That is what I said during my remarks. I wish that the hon. Lady would not always adopt the guise of the defender of the righteous. Opposition Members have no interest in defending those who seek to defraud London Transport. We fail to see the point behind the system that has been introduced hurriedly in another place.

Mrs. Chalker: I do not believe that the system was introduced hurriedly. Their Lordships were talking about it at the beginning of their deliberations on the Bill and, after several weeks, they came to the amendments which have come to the House tonight. I am in no sense seeking to be righteous. I want a system that will work and stop the type of fraud—it cost about £25 million last year—that is continuing to occur. Without the new equipment that is available and a new manner of deterring those who would evade fares, that system will not be possible.
One hon. Member commented about bringing the measures into effect. They will be brought into effect by order of the Secretary of State only at LRT's request. It would be possible to introduce penalty fares on buses sooner than on the Underground. I agree that an authority-to-travel ticket from a machine is a good idea and, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said, would be welcomed by all those who are unable to pay their fare


because the booking office is closed. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will not approve such an order until he is satisfied that the machines and equipment are in reasonable order and that all the conditions for the penalty fares scheme can be brought into effect.
Other hon. Members asked about other ways of curbing fare evasion. I point out to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the idea of issuing receipts at the barrier which, I understand, was tried experimentally once or twice, has not worked successfully. It would certainly not eliminate the present level of evasion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about those with season tickets who need to go one or two stations further than their season ticket permits. In the short term, as it will not be possible for season ticket holders to pay for the excess portion of their journey in advance, they will be able to do so on completion of their journey without incurring liability to a penalty fare as at present. In the longer term, with the new underground ticketing system, it will be possible for season ticket holders to purchase a pre-excess ticket at the start of their journey to cover their intended over-riding. That possibility exists in other cities around the world at the moment.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that answer. I did not suggest the receipt idea as a way to prevent fraud, which is what we all want to achieve, it was illustrative of LT's apparently casual attitude to this difficult problem.

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a difficult problem. Fare evasion must be curbed. If the House agrees with their Lordships' amendments it will be assisting in curbing it. Until there is the deterrent of a penalty fare, whatever will LRT may have in the future, it would not be able successfully to curb the amount of fraud that is now occurring.
I believe that there has been a great deal of thought about these amendments by their Lordships in another place. I believe that inspection on the trains and the other plans that will go hand in hand with the schemes that LT officers have been thinking about for some time but unable to carry through, will mean that we can start to combat the wasteful £25 million, as it was last year, lost through fraud. That will mean a far better deal for the travelling public and the ratepayer. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 34 agreed to.

Schedule 4

OPERATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO FORMER LONDON BOARD FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 80, line 30, leave out from second "to" to second "of' in line 31 and insert "any wholly owned subsidiary".

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor drafting amendment to paragraph 6(4) of schedule 4. It corrects an error in the description of paragraph 7(1) of schedule 16 to the Transport Act 1968. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 81, line 27, leave out from "provisions" to "shall" in line 28.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 37.

Mr. Ridley: This amendment simply corrects an oversight. We overlooked the fact that the power to make byelaws and regulations under section 104(2) and (3) of the London Passenger Transport Act 1938 has already been repealed. The amendment therefore, deletes the redundant reference to that power from paragraph 8(3) of schedule 4. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 37 agreed to.

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 87, line 22, after "office)" insert "(a)".

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40. I inform the House that these three amendments involve privilege.

Mr. Ridley: I shall explain these amendments more fully, because they could be misinterpreted. The House will remember that I agreed in Committee that if any member of the existing board of London Transport Executive was displaced on the appointed day it would be wrong to ask the GLC to pay any compensation that was due to him. I agreed, and the House has accepted, that we cannot make the GLC responsible for that compensation.
We neglected to examine the position of the chairmen of the two existing passenger committees: the Transport Users Consultative Committee for London and the London Transport Passengers' Committee. Those bodies will be amalgamated in the new committee. I am not mentioning any names or making suggestions about what might happen, but it is possible that one or other of the chairmen might lose his office prematurely as a result of the Bill. It seemed only fair in the circumstances to agree that the GLC should not be required to pay the due compensation and that it should be met by the Secretary of State. The effect of the amendment is to put these matters on a par with the amendments that I conceded in Committee.

Mr. Snape: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I have not often had the opportunity of doing so during our long and protracted debates on the Bill. In Committee, he said almost exactly the opposite of what he has said tonight, but, if it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he said it with equal sincerity.
I am bound to say that any change of heart by the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to the Opposition. I shall not ask him which of the chairmen whom he mentioned in the TUCC or the LTPC will get the job. Such matters are more suitable to correspondence between Ministers and the person involved. No doubt, knowing the right hon. Gentleman, he will take to himself the task of signing the letter re-appointing the lucky person and leave the letter dismissing the other chairman to the Minister of State, if precedent in the Bill is anything to go by.
Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one final question. We have heard about what he is going to do. When will he do it? The people to whom he has referred have a right to know about their future. We have heard a lot about the day in which the legislation will come into force and we know full well the reasons behind the semi-indecent rush that we have had today to get the legislation on to the statute book, but perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when the lucky and the unlucky chairmen are likely to receive a letter from the right hon. Gentleman to reappoint them or to put them out of work.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might reply to what has been said. I can hardly describe today's proceedings as a semi-indecent rush. The hon. Gentleman came in rather heavily towards the end of the afternoon and has delayed our programmes with his usual long, rather offensive and meaningless speeches.
Once the Bill receives the Royal Assent—I should not dream of anticipating that—events will move rather more quickly than they have as a result of the hon. Gentleman's tactics during the Bill's many stages. Then, we shall go about our business in a workmanlike fashion. We shall be able to show that we do not waste time or indulge in undue haste when we start on the important task of reconstructing London transport.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 89, line 13, after "to" insert
any service or services provided in pursuance of

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 43.

Mrs. Chalker: These are minor drafting amendments to paragraph 11(4) of schedule 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 42 and 43 agreed to.

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendments: No. 44, in page 97, line 47, at end insert
or to any subsidiary of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984)

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment remedies a small oversight in paragraph 22 of schedule 6. That paragraph will enable LRT to retain the exemption that London Transport and British Rail have from the general requirement placed on public service vehicle operators, under section 27 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, to produce financial and statistical returns to the Secretary of State. We omitted before to apply that exemption to the subsidiaries as well. The amendment puts that right, because it is obviously sensible to treat LRT and the subsidiaries in the same way,

which we undertook to do in Committee. Therefore, the amendment simply does something that we wished to do in Committee.

Mr. Prescott: Is this matter connected with the information required of local authorities under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act? In that Act, it was laid down that detailed statistical and financial information was required from local authorities. It is not normally required of nationalised industries because of the different arrangements between the Secretary of State and nationalised industries. Will the same amount of information be required of LRT by the Minister's Department as is now required of the GLC and LT?

Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House. I was trying to assist the hon. Gentleman, but he may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. The amendment puts LRT subsidiaries—LRT bus and underground, and any other subsidiary—on the same basis as LRT. That is the basis under which LT has been operating since the 1981 Act. That means that the financial and statistical returns should be made to the Secretary of State. In Committee we decided to treat the subsidiaries in the same way as LRT, so that they would be able to retain the exemption that LT and BR have from the general requirement.

Mr. Prescott: By leave of the House. I am sorry to press this point. The legislation in 1981 required that detailed and specific information should be given. Will the information required of subsidiaries of LRT be considerably less than that expected of the GLC when it previously ran London Transport?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on the same point at all. We are talking about the requirement upon the subsidiaries to produce the information. We are not altering any of the understanding that we had in Committee when we discussed the matter. The amendment ensures that the subsidiaries are in line with the holding company in the production of information.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 99, line 14, at end insert—

The Food Act 1984

30.—(1) In section 11(4)(a) of the Food Act 1984 (vehicles whose detention by an officer of a council is not authorised under that section), for the words from "Boards" to "subsidiaries" there shall be substituted the words "transport authorities mentioned in subsection (4A)".

(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 11(4)—
(4A) The transport authorities referred to in subsection (4) (a) are—
(a) the Boards established by the Transport Act 1962 and any wholly owned subsidiary of any of those Boards; and
(b) London Regional Transport and any subsidiary (whether wholly owned or not) of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984).".

31. In Schedule 11 to that Act (repeals and revocations), after the entry relating to the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following words—


"1968 c. 73.
Transport Act 1968
In Schedule 16, paragraph 7(2)(d)"."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48.

Mrs. Chalker: These are technical amendments to take account of consolidation Bills that are expected to receive the Royal Assent with the London Regional Transport Bill. They involve no change in the law.

Mr. Prescott: What do the amendments do and what do they mean?

Mrs. Chalker: The Food Bill consolidates and will repeal, among other things, section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which is referred to in schedule 4 to the London Regional Transport Bill. That section gives local authority inspectors the power to stop vehicles which they think are carrying food intended for sale, and to inspect food. I can tell the hon. Gentleman more about the Food Bill if he wishes.
The amendments also refer to the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. We are repealing a provision in that Bill, which makes a textual amendment to section 1 of the 1969 legislation. The Bill repeals that section and so the amending provision becomes redundant. We have already debated parts of this in Committee, and the issue was accepted without a Division on both occasions.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 103, line 38, column 3, at end insert—
"the Common Council"".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor amendment, but to please the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) I shall say that it saves from repeal the definition of the Common Council in the Transport (London) Act 1969. It is sensible, and should be included in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 48 agreed to.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Motion made and question proposed,
That Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Bernard Conlan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS

Motion made and question proposed,
That Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Roger Sims be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ENVIRONMENT

Motion made and question proposed,
That Sir Reginald Eyre be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Julian Critchley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion made and question proposed,
That Mr. Mark Robinson be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Robert Harvey be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made and question proposed,
That Mr. Michael Lord be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Jim Spicer be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made and question proposed,
That Mr. Robert Harvey be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs and Mr. Keith Best be added to the Committee—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Marcus Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the sustained objections to the motions that I have proposed, I shall seek time from the Leader of the House to debate these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that clear to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The maximum possible notice from the Leader of the House, who is not present, but who will hear of this from the Government Whips, would be of advantage to all hon. Members. The debate on these matters is long awaited and overdue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for making his view clear.

Orders of the Day — Walsall (Housing)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. David Winnick: The background to this Adjournment debate is the substantial overall reduction in housing public expenditure since 1979. In real terms the national expenditure on housing will fall during the current financial year to about 39 per cent. of its 1979–80 level. In round figures that means a reduction from £5,455 million in 1979–80 to £2,118 million in 1984–85.
That will obviously cause great housing hardship. The Select Committee on the Environment, on which I served during the last Parliament, warned the Government in its first report of the likely consequences of the reduction in housing expenditure which the Government had decided to make. It warned of a shortfall in housing which would arise.
That is the national position, which we have debated and which I hope we shall debate again in the near future. But if one considers the position at local level and takes, as I intend to, since it is the subject of tonight's debate, the borough of Walsall, one can see what happens as a result of the cuts made nationally and their impact on a local community. Almost exactly three years ago I drew attention in an Adjournment debate to the borough's pressing housing needs and referred to the serious problems faced by Walsall as a result of a continuing refusal to allow the council a housing investment programme allocation anywhere near to what it had requested year after year.
During the past few years the HIP allocation has been less than one third of the money that the council requested. Earlier this year I received a letter from the town clerk informing me of the deliberations of the housing committee that had considered the HIP allocation for 1984–85. The council had asked for £36,850,000, which, in the view of the director of housing, was capable of practical implementation. The amount allocated to the council was just more than £10 million, which, allowing for inflation, represented a lower allocation than for the previous year.
The housing committee said that the allocation fell far short of the sum required to enable the committee to produce a realistic housing programme in both the public and private sectors. It also said that it would affect the council's ability to modernise and repair the existing substandard public housing stock within a realistic period.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment after receiving that letter from the town clerk and explained the position. I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will reply to this debate a disappointing, although predictable reply.
Since the 1984–85 allocation, the council has received a supplementary sum of £400,000, but even taken together those sums in no way represent what is urgently needed in the borough and are not even half of what the council requested. The HIP allocation plus the capital receipts cannot meet the housing requirements. I should say that during the past three years the council has spent everything that has been allocated, so it cannot be argued that money has been allocated but that the council has not spent it.
This year representatives of the west midlands regional office of the Department of the Environment visited the borough, and the formidable housing problems of Walsall were clearly explained to them. In another letter the Under-Secretary of State told me that the officials had found the visit helpful and instructive. Tonight I should like to know more about the conclusions of that visit. Did the officials come to the view that the sum allocated for the HIP programme in the current and previous financial years was insufficient to deal with the borough's housing problems, which have been explained to me on several occasions, and by me to the Minister?
The Minister for Housing and Construction informed me last month that he would visit my constituency to see some projects undertaken by the authority. Immediately I received his letter I wrote back to remind him of the correspondence between his colleagues and me, and I said that I hoped that when the Minister visited Walsall he would more clearly understand the problems and the need for a reassessment of its HIP allocation.
I received the Minister's reply towards the latter part of last week. Again it referred to what the Government see as the need to control the overall level of public expenditure. I was told that no further resources were available for the current year. I was told:
We will take into account what has been learnt about Walsall's housing problems when allocations for the 1985–86 financial year are being made in the autumn.
I am not quite sure what "we" means. Does it mean the Minister, junior Ministers, or the officials at regional level? The council's 1985–86 HIP submission is for £37·5 million.
I want to deal briefly in the time left to me with some of the problems which I know and understand, not only from the correspondence which I receive from my authority but because people regularly write to me and come to my surgeries to tell me about them. It is all very well to deal in overall terms of national expenditure, HIP allocations, and so on, but what do they mean in human terms? What does it mean when the Government embark, as they did in 1979, on a deliberate policy of drastically cutting housing public expenditure?
Since 1979 in my borough no contracts for new council housing have been entered into at all. That is bound to mean that with the Government's sales policy and no new build there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of rented accommodation. As I have explained on other occasions in national housing debates, to the best of my knowledge this is the first time, apart from the war years, that there has been a reduction, be it national or local, in the amount of rented accommodation available.
Without now going into the pros and cons of the Government's policy on selling accommodation, surely it is reasonable to argue that if their policy is to be pursued there should at least be some encouragement for local authorities to be in a position to replace the rented accommodaion which is being sold. That, however, is the opposite of the policy which has been pursued by the Government since taking office.
Young married couples, and also single people who urgently, and in many cases desperately, want somewhere to live in my borough but who cannot become owner-occupiers, require to be rehoused by the local authority. I wish that the Government would recognise that there remains a large number of people in Britain, as in my constituency and borough, who are not in a position to take


out a mortgage, certainly not with the high levels of unemployment. In so many cases unmarried people live with their parents and in-laws. They are not in a position to be helped by the council for a considerable time. It is a problem which will obviously apply if a policy is being pursued which substantially reduces rented accommodation.
Married couples with children, who live in multi-storey blocks of flats in my constituency and who have been on the waiting lists some time understandably want to be rehoused. If they have one child, thy stand hardly any chance at all. They could wait years and years now without being given the opportunity of a house. Even with two children, and in some cases three, they have to wait a pretty long time. They can live on the fifth, eighth, ninth or twelth floor. In vain, they come to see me, a councillor or I go to the neighbourhood office. What can the council do? It is all very well to talk about accommodation being sold, but, as the Select Committee warned, and as I and my hon. Friends warned, the places being sold are not the flats on the fifth or the twelth floor of the multi-storey blocks of flats. I do not know how many have been sold in my constituency or borough, but very few indeed. Those sold are obviously houses with gardens. In other words, they are the very places to which those with children who live in multi-storey blocks would like to transfer as quickly as possible.
There is an acute shortage of accommodation for the elderly in OAP flats. Bacause of the situation in the borough, only those with medical recommendations are being considered for such housing. I am informed by the director of housing that someone with a medical recommendation may still have to wait three or four years before being offered a place. Those are the people who urgently need accommodation of this sort. I do not know what sort of brief the Minister has in his hand, but does he not consider it a serious matter—given the problems that his officials and his brief tell him exist in the borough—that the council has been unable to enter into any contracts for new council housing for five years precisely because of the Government's policy? Even with the capital receipts and the HIP allocation there have been nowhere near sufficient funds available.
Difficulties also arise with tenants living in older council property. The council is clearly anxious that such dwellings should be modernised as quickly as possible, but it cannot modernise nearly as many dwellings as it would like to, because it just does not have the funds. Constituents of mine who live, for example, on Rosehill estate in Withenhall have been waiting for some years, and continue to wait. Would it not be far better if those places were modernised as quickly as possible? Does not common sense tell us that the longer the delays, the more money that will have to be spent? Ultimately those places will have to be modernised, and the longer it takes, the more it will cost.
Another problem, which is not confined of course to my borough, concerns the position of Orlits and other prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. The Government have rightly taken measures to assist owner-occupiers of such properties, but what about council tenants? The entire financial responsiblity will fall on the local council. In effect, the Government say that the money will come out of the HIP allocation. But boroughs like mine are already much in need of funds to carry out the programmes, as I have been explaining, so where on

earth will they find additional funds unless they receive Government assistance? There are, after all, quite a few Orlit properties in the borough. The Minister may say, "Well what about vacant properties?", but, as I said in a debate three years ago, the number of vacant properties in the borough is just over half the national average for the metropolitan boroughs.
There is another matter that I am justified in mentioning—improvement grants. Prior to the election, the Government allowed quite a lot of money to be spent on those grants for owner-occupiers, but now the position is quite different. Quite a few of the owner-occupiers in the borough are not in a position to carry out work without assistance, but they find that there is a long queue for it. Again, as with the other issues, they come to see me. Obviously, I write to the director of housing and he explains that with the limited amount of cash available it is impossible to assist there. That is rather different from the situation prior to the 1983 general election.
Those are some of the problems that I have felt it necessary and justifiable to raise again tonight. I have no illusions. I certainly do not believe that any words of mine—eloquent or otherwise—will change Cabinet policy. However, I have a duty as a Member of Parliament to explain on the Floor of the House what the impact of the Government's housing cuts mean in human terms in one borough.
I believe that I have a duty to my constituents, who are so urgently in need of housing, re-housing, having their places modernised or for a grant, not only to deal with the problems in corespondence, but to raise these matters on the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will give some ray of hope so that the 1985–86 HIP allocation will involve a realistic sum to meet the housing needs of the borough.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has explained his perception of the housing needs in his constituency. Nobody can doubt the genuine concern that he has expressed about the problems that his constituents and local housing authority face. The Government recognise fully the importance of the issues and I have no wish to underestimate the severity of the housing problems that confront our inner urban area authorities.
I should like to put into perspective some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman produced. He quoted the figures for public sector investment in housing from 1979 to date. My figures show a decrease of 23 per cent., although the decrease is likely to be less, since expenditure in. 1983–84 is likely to be slightly higher than we expected.
The decrease between 1975–76 and 1978–79 was 46 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a policy of deliberately cutting housing expenditure, he should also address with equal vigour what happened under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned those waiting for improvement grants. In the last year of the Labour Government £90 million was spent on improvement grants. The figure for last year is likely to be £900 million. That puts in perspective some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
I found it astonishing that in a debate on housing needs in Walsall, the hon. Gentleman hardly mentioned resources in the private sector. He mentioned that matter


at 10.37 pm, in passing, only to dismiss it. One must take issue with the hon. Gentleman's apparent conviction that the solution to the problems can lie only in making more public sector resources available to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the initiatives that we have taken to encourage low-cost home ownership and other initiatives that have a bearing on housing in Walsall.
The Government's view is that we must continue to strive for a balance between the demand for services financed by public expenditure and the need for a healthy national economy in which private investment and individual initiative can flourish. Our firm intention is to secure a low rate of inflation for the long term. That means that we must continue to contain public expenditure at reasonable levels.
The hon. Member's own constituents have suffered more than most in the west midlands region from the recession. We cannot afford to jeopardise economic revival by excessive public expenditure now. I have referred to the dramatic cuts in public sector expenditure which followed the IMF intervention.
The hon. Member rightly mentioned Walsall's level of HIP allocation in 1984–85. The district received an initial allocation of £10·185 million which represented 5·7 per cent. of the west midland region's allocation. Compared with the 1983–84 allocation there was a modest cash increase in 1984–85. Only about one-quarter of the region's authorities benefited from such an increase and on the indication given by the generalised needs index we have no reason to think that Walsall is not getting a fair share of the region's resources.
The size of the annual HIP allocation no longer represents the whole picture on housing resources. Capital receipts make a very substantial input to the totality of resources available. One of my Department's tasks is to strike a balance between the distribution of resources through HIP allocations according to need and the desirability of allowing local authorities to benefit directly from the generation of capital receipts. Overall, the level of capital receipts has been growing steadily since 1981 and so we came to the conclusion that for 1984–85 it would be appropriate to adjust this balance to a limited extent.
Therefore, we reduced the prescribed proportion of housing capital receipts from the sale of council houses available directly to authorities to use from 50 to 40 per cent. In making that change, we recognised that those authorities that were planning to spend the full 50 per cent. of their capital receipts would lose. We therefore held back £50 million from the overall settlement in November specifically to help authorities in difficulty because of the change. Walsall demonstrated that a shortfall of £0·4 million would be created by the change and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that was met in full by the supplementary allocation that my hon. Friend announced on 2 March.
We also recognise the need for local authorities to be able to plan their housing expenditure for more than one year ahead if they are to use limited resources sensibly. With that in mind, for the last two years we have given assurances about the levels of allocations in later years. In November last year, on issuing the 1984–85 allocations to authorities, we gave an assurance that for 1985–86 and 1986–87, authorities could plan on the basis of allocations

of at least 80 per cent. and 70 per cent. respectively of the current year's allocation where they could demonstrate the need for such expenditure.
I come to some specific areas of housing need which have been identified as requiring public sector investment both by the hon. Gentleman tonight and by others of his hon. Friends in earlier debates. It has been suggested that local authorities need to continue to make provision for new build accommodation for general needs. But there is ample evidence to support the Government's view that the key issue is to ensure that there is available an adequate supply of houses for sale at prices that people can afford.
The 1978 general household survey carried out by the then Labour Government established that the preferred form of tenure of 90 per cent. of those under the age of 45 was home ownership. For those over 45, the figure was 61 per cent. A Building Societies Association review in 1983 confirmed this.
It is our clear duty to give every encouragement and assistance to the preferred choice of the people, and that preferred choice is clearly for owner-occupation, and the level of the take-up of the right to buy tells its own story. As I think the hon. Gentleman will concede, there is widespread aspiration for home ownership among tenants, many of whom could never have hoped to realise their ambition unless the right to buy had been conferred on them by Parliament. The Housing Defects Bill at present before Parliament will extend this right to buy in significant new ways.
In addition to many buyers who are benefiting from discounts under the right to buy, those seeking to purchase a home for the first time in the private sector should also find a home easier to afford. Rising earnings, in real terms, can bring home ownership within the reach of more people. The private sector is already providing more than three quarters of all new housing, a fact which the hon. Gentleman did not mention.
Private housing starts, which must be relevant to tackling Walsall's housing needs, reached 167,000 in 1983, a figure last exceeded 10 years ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the vigour and enterprise of the private house builders, and the Government look to them to act in partnership with the public sector to meet the housing challenges of the future.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister not appreciate how callous his words are for the many thousands of people in my constituency and in the borough as a whole who are not in a position to buy their own homes, even if they were employed, let alone now, with unemployment running at 17 per cent? Is he saying that there is no hope for these people and that it is right and proper that there should be no new contracts for council housing? I said that there had not been any such contracts for five years. Is that to continue for another five years, if this Government remain in office?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman persists with a blinkered view of housing needs. He must understand that if Walsall council or any other local authority, for example, makes land available to the private sector to build low-cost homes for sale, and it has a partnership agreement by which those homes are offered either to sitting council tenants or to people on the waiting list, real progress can be made in tackling the problems which the hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned.
At no cost to the local authority, it can tackle housing need; not only at no cost, but it gets a receipt from the sale of the land. That is the type of broad approach that we have encouraged local authorities to adopt. Many, including Labour authorities, have adopted it. Not only does it enable progress to be made in meeting housing needs; it meets the aspiration of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who do not want to be local authority tenants. They would prefer to be home owners. The hon. Gentleman heard the figures which I gave a few minutes ago—[Interruption.]—and he is aware of the percentage of those under 45 who want to be home owners. The hon. Gentleman spoke for more than 15 minutes and has taken some of my time already. I must try to make progress and not be diverted by his interjections.
Walsall council has shown an interest in pursuing some of the initiatives that I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction saw an example of an improvement for sale project in Walsall when he visited the town only last month. I urge the local authority to examine the scope for developing such initiatives further. Commitment to such projects is a factor of which we shall again be taking particular account in deciding HIP allocations for 1985–86.
We accept, of course, that it is for local authorities to identify the particular balance of need in their own areas, but the clear preference for owner-occupation and the increasing ability of the private sector to meet that need, lead us to expect that authorities will concentrate their future new build programmes on provision for special needs such as the disabled and elderly on low incomes.
Repair and improvement of existing council-owned stock is an important area of investment. We have to ensure that we make the best use we can of the stock that exists. This is an issue which has given rise to concern in Walsall.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned defective houses in the local authority's own stock. I know that Orlit houses are a cause of particular concern in Walsall. The purpose of

the Housing Defects Bill currently before Parliament is to give assistance to private owners. There is no need to make special financial arrangements for the costs of repair of defective houses in local authorities' own stock. We have said repeatedly that special needs for expenditure of this kind will be taken into account in deciding the HIP allocations of the authorities concerned. It is for each local authority in its responsible role as landlord to decide in the light of this and its other priorities how it should spend its allocation.
We were aware of the need for spending on prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in arriving at the total provision for housing capital expenditure in the expenditure plans announced last autumn.
I should like finally to say something about the renovation of privately owned dwellings, a sector in which Walsall has shown a growing interest over the past two years. The development of its block repair scheme, which my hon. Friend inspected last month, represents a fresh approach to area improvement which is being studied in some depth within my Department. It is also to the authority's credit that it has promoted an urban development grant scheme with the Abbey National Building Society for the provision of six show houses in Walsall.
The Government remain commited to tackling housing problems in Walsall. We are determined to use all available resources to do so and not only those of the public sector. I offer a final word of reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. We shall take into account, when we decide the HIP allocations for next year, the remarks that he has made this evening and the discussions that are taking place between officials of Walsall council and those of my Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o' clock.